Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

PETITION

Teachers (Equal Pay)

Mr. M. Stewart: I beg to ask leave to present to this honourable House a Petition signed by 1,073 of Her Majesty's loyal subjects, men and women teachers who are working in West London. The grievance set forth in the Petition is that women employed in the teaching profession, undertaking work equal to that of their male colleagues, suffer great injustice by reason of unequal rates of pay on account of their sex. The petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that this honourable House will consider legislation to establish the principle of equal pay as between men and women in the public services.
The Petition concludes, as is proper, with the words
Wherefore your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE

Minor Motoring Offences (Court Attendance)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made towards a system for dealing with minor motoring offences which will eliminate the present waste of police time.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I have under consideration the report of a working party which was set up to consider and report on measures which might be taken to save the time of witnesses at the summary trial of minor offences. Some of the proposals considered by the working party would involve legislation and will require further consideration, but they have also put forward a number of other suggestions with a view to dispensing with the attendance of unnecessary witnesses and to saving the time of those witnesses whose attendance is essential.
I hope shortly to issue a circular commending some of these suggestions, which might do a good deal to lighten the burden of the police, to the consideration of magistrates' courts.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the interest in this matter, and particularly as one can see, every day, dozens of Metropolitan police officers engaged on trivial tasks, will my right hon. and learned Friend publish the report?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will consider that point, but I cannot give any promise about it.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the Home Secretary taken into account the observations of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Constabulary who, in their last report, also drew attention to the wastage of manpower involved in using the police for this kind of offence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. and learned Friend get into touch with the Secretary of State for Scotland in this matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will consider that.

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will furnish an estimate of the number of man-hours occupied by police officers in the Metropolitan police district during the month of November at magistrates' courts for the purpose of giving evidence in cases of alleged obstruction.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Approximately 2,500.

Sir H. Williams: Having regard to the fact that these prosecutions have no effect at all on obstruction, and as the Commissioner of Police is always moaning about being short of manpower, would it not be much better if these policemen were doing ordinary beat duty?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: But obstruction has to be considered. As I estimate it—I should like my arithmetic checked—the total number of man-hours is about 4 million, which makes this 0·125 per cent. or 1/800. Obstruction has to be borne in mind for the general convenience of the public.

Mr. H. Hynd: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman promised me a considerable time ago, in reply to another question, that he would look into this general matter of the time spent by police officers in courts dealing with minor offences, can he tell me the results?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in when I answered Question No. 1, but I did say that the working party had reported and that some of the recommendations that did not require legislation were to be the matter of a circular within the early future. I am not trying to underestimate the problem of the proper use of police manpower. That is one that is constantly in my mind. All I am saying is the obvious point, I think, that I have to consider obstruction and convenience of the public.

Mr. Callaghan: How will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop obstruction in London until there are adequate parking spaces, including underground car parks? Are not these fines becoming rents for parking in the street?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I agree that that has to be considered, and it is being considered.

Mr. Paget: Is there any reason why police reports in this sort of case should not be acceptable as evidence without the attendance of the police constable—[Hon. Members: "Oh."]—unless the defendant requests his presence?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think it would be generally acceptable to go as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. I should like him to elaborate it at a convenient time. What I am trying to do is to bring into being procedure for finding out, in advance, the cases where the defendant does not want to attend, and, therefore, does not want to dispute the matter, or where he will indicate he will plead guilty, so that the attendance of, at any rate, one or two witnesses can be dispensed with.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are in London far too many "no obstruction" and "no parking" signs which the motorist believes are badly sited, so that he ignores them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will bear that in mind.

Suspected Persons (Questioning)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance he has given to Metropolitan police officers regarding the taking of statements from persons in cases of murder and other serious crimes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The General Orders of the Metropolitan police, and the instructions given in the Metropolitan police training schools, are directed towards ensuring that there shall be strict compliance with the provisions of the Judges' Rules relating to the questioning by police officers of persons suspected or in custody.

Mr. Willey: Does the guidance include reference to the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1929, and does the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciate that this is a matter of importance not only to the accused but also in order to obviate any allegations against the police?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do appreciate that, and if the hon. Member is at all interested he may care to read what I said myself when I last had an opportunity of discussing the matter.

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the use of the tape-recording machine in the taking by Metropolitan Police officers of statements from persons in custody.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have considered this suggestion, but can find no sufficient ground to warrant its adoption. Among other practical objections is the difficulty of proving that a voice heard on a recording machine was the voice of the person in custody. Moreover, a recorded voice would be open to the same objection as that sometimes taken to written statements, namely, that it had been obtained under duress or by threats or inducements applied beforehand.

Mr. Willey: While fully appreciating what the right hon. Gentleman has said, may I ask whether he realises that in some police quarters the suggestion is approved, and will he keep it under review to see whether it would be worth while to carry out experiments?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will certainly keep it under review, and if the hon. Member has any suggestion for obviating the practical difficulties I will willingly consider it.

Christie Statements (Recording Time)

Mr. Willey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number of words in the statement made by Christie at the Notting Hill police station in December, 1949; and the time taken for recording it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Christie made three statements at Notting Hill police station, on 1st, 5th and 8th December, 1949. They contained 991, 821 and 375 words respectively. No record is kept of the time spent in taking statements made by potential witnesses, as Christie was at the time in question.

Mr. Willey: Are there any valid reasons why this statement should not be made available to help those who are properly interested in this case?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is a different question, which I should like to consider.

Youth Gangs (Hooliganism)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the number of youth gangs given to violence known to the police in the Metropolitan area; and what action is being taken to break these up.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis is not aware of any organised gangs given to violence, but he tells me that during the nine months ended 30th September last, 77 persons under 21 years of age, and operating in groups of three or more, were arrested in the Metropolitan police district for indictable offences involving violence against the person. The Commissioner is taking special precautions to deal with potential trouble spots and to check hooliganism, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose details of the measures taken.

Mr. Shepherd: Does not this statement of the Commissioner seem to conflict with the evidence given in a recent trial which gained publicity? Is it not desirable that, if these gangs do exist, the public should be made aware of them and that attention should be directed towards getting rid of them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose in advance the steps which are being taken. As to the case, I think I am right in saying that it is still sub judice, so I shall not comment on it.

Visit to U.S.A.

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what officers of Scotland Yard have been sent to the United States of America; and for what purpose.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Apart from officers on protection duties, no member of the Metropolitan police force has visited the United States of America on official business in the last two years other than the officer referred to in my reply on 12th November to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay).

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there is tremendous concern, particularly in Scotland, that there may be an intention to introduce into this country—indeed, that there have already been introduced—American police methods, which are repugnant here? Will he give an assurance that such American police methods will not be introduced into this country?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I answered that point last week, and I made clear that the object of the visit was to study and get advice on problems of prostitution and importuning by male persons in London. I think it is very important that I should get the experience of other countries on those matters. On the other matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, I myself am quite content with and, indeed, proud of, British police methods.

Strength

Mr. Ede: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the variations in strength of the police forces in the cities and boroughs of England and Wales during 1953 and in the strength of the Metropolitan police force during the same period; and say what steps are to be taken to bring these forces up to establishment.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Between 1st January and 31st October, 1953, the male strength of the city and borough forces in England and Wales fell by 14 and of the Metropolitan police force by 144. Thirty-five city and borough forces increased in strength, six were unchanged and 33 showed losses. Although the rate of recruiting is still high by pre-war standards, and fairly good progress had been made up to the beginning of this year, the loss in strength since then gives cause for anxiety.
As regards the second part of the Question, advertising for the Metropolitan and certain other police forces has recently been intensified, and a new illustrated brochure is now being distributed to organisations which assist young men in the choice of a career. It is my belief that, with the improvement in conditions of service introduced since the war, the police service offers an excellent career and a worth-while job for young men of the right type and that it is desirable to

see that particulars of the police service as a career should be widely known.
An important development has been the bringing into force of the new negotiating machinery, and as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Police Council for Great Britain recently held its first meeting. The Council is at present considering an application for increases in pay.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider instituting an inquiry into the conditions of service, particularly as they affect the domestic arrangements of the police, for undoubtedly some of the wastage is caused by the fact that policemen's wives do not like their husbands being on this particular job?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I agree that that is a most important aspect. It is constantly in my mind, but I shall direct special attention to it.

Major Legge-Bourke: In the case of counties where there has been a fall in the number of police, is that in any way associated with a shortage of housing?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that is a very important matter in relation to these falls, although, of course, housing is tremendously important. At the moment, speaking from memory, I believe the number of police houses alone is being increased at the rate of 200 a month. I think we are beginning to see our way through the problem.

Mr. Mellish: Is the Home Secretary aware that the great problem here is created by lack of promotion prospects? Will he bear in mind that the Oaksey Committee says that to ensure that he will get the higher rate of pension, a policeman has to stay on at his job for something like three years beyond the normal time? Is he aware that this is clogging the whole machine? Where there is a sergeant who should retire, and who will not retire because he wants the higher pension rate, the vacancy is not filled. Something will have to be done about it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That point has been very much in the mind of both the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in this office and myself. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have it in mind and will continue to consider it.

Overnight Lorry Parking (Complaints)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of complaints that drivers of road haulage vehicles are being harassed by the Metropolitan police when they find overnight parking spaces; and what instructions have been issued by the Commissioner of Police.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have received only one such complaint. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis informs me that he has received none, but that he has received complaints from householders and others about the obstruction and noise caused by the parking of lorries overnight. The Commissioner of Police has issued no instructions, but the police have taken action where it has been necessary to prevent serious obstruction.

Mr. Callaghan: While we all accept the fact that that action must be taken, would the Home Secretary have a look at the situation of the drivers, some of whom feel that they are being chased in this matter, even when they have found an overnight parking place which seems to be suitable? Could he arrange to provide an adequate supply of free parking places?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: This is a difficult problem. There is also the fact that there have been complaints about a number of larcenies of and from lorries. I will bear both points in mind and will convey what the hon. Gentleman has said to the Commissioner.

Retired Officers (Rehousing)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he will make for the re-housing of police officers who have to vacate their official residence on retirement from the force.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: A police officer has no title to continue to occupy after his retirement accommodation provided by the police authority. The responsibility for obtaining other accommodation is primarily that of the officer himself and, in so far as he has difficulty in finding a suitable house, his case would fall to be considered by the appropriate housing authority.

Mr. Jeger: Is the Home Secretary aware of the difficulty experienced by police officers who are on the verge of retirement after many years of service? Is he aware that when they apply to the local housing authorities for a council house, because at that time they are living in very good accommodation provided by the local police authorities, they are put very low on the housing list and, to the very moment of their leaving the force, are in doubt about getting proper housing accommodation?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That is an important point. Perhaps the hon. Member will recall that paragraph 300 of the Oaksey Committee Report deals with it and urges what I think is the gist of the matter—that men about to retire should have their claims considered in good time. A circular has been sent to local authorities on that point, and I will have the position re-examined in view of what the hon. Member has said.

Metropolitan Estimates (Examination)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make arrangements to enable local authorities in the Metropolitan police area to examine the annual estimates of the Metropolitan police before such estimates are submitted to the House of Commons.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: No, Sir. It would not be proper for me to make the estimates available to local authorities before they are available to the House. It is, however, the practice for the Receiver to discuss the estimates with representatives of the Metropolitan boroughs and the outer London authorities after they have been published, and I have recently given instructions that the precept in the Metropolitan police district is in the ordinary course to be based on the Parliamentary estimates.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the estimates are sent out to local authorities without their having any opportunity whatsoever of expressing any view on the subject? Is he aware that the Metropolitan borough of Lambeth, for example, is called upon to pay £225,000 to the Metropolitan police without having any


opportunity at all of expressing any view as to whether the sum is properly required or not?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that what I have said as to the discussions which the Receiver has after the estimates have been published goes some way to meet that point, and it is as a result of recent discussions that it has been agreed that the precept should be based on the Parliamentary estimate.

Mr. Gibson: In view of the fact that this is a sad case of taxation without representation will the right hon. and learned Gentleman at least consider the matter, because it is really a serious bone of contention in London? Cannot arrangements be made whereby the authorities may see the estimates before they are printed and published, so that they may have an opportunity of expressing views upon them?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think that that would be in accordance with my duty to this House as Home Secretary and police authority, but if there are any further suggestions that can be made I shall be prepared to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Clubs (Licensing)

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he anticipates being able to introduce legislation to give more control over the granting of licences for the operation of clubs.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on 26th November to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Brigadier Medlicott).

Captain Pilkington: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that these clubs do considerable harm to the proper functioning of the ordinary public-house?

Civil Defence Volunteers (Accident Liability)

Mr. R. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement upon the case of Civil Defence volunteer, Mr. A. P. Avenell, to which his attention has been drawn.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I understand that Mr. Avenell, who was an auxiliary fireman, is a co-defendant with the London County Council in proceedings for damages started by another auxiliary fireman, who was accidentally injured at drill. The London County Council is negotiating with the injured man's solicitors for an amicable settlement, and any settlement completed will be on the basis that the injured man's claim against Mr. Avenell will be withdrawn and the proceedings against him terminated.

Mr. Adams: While thanking the Home Secretary for that information, may I ask whether he is aware that this accident happened more than two years ago and that for some months Mr. Avenell has been in jeopardy of a High Court action and possible bankruptcy? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman try to get the law altered in respect of this matter?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I did go rather further than is usual in discussing a case that is not yet completed, but if I might answer the hon. Gentleman generally I can tell him that I have this matter under consideration.

Mr. R. Adams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the rules laid down by him in regard to the personal liability of part-time Civil Defence volunteers for the consequences arising from accidents in which they are involved while on duty.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The personal liability of part-time Civil Defence volunteers for the consequences of their actions on duty is a matter of law in which I have no authority to lay down rules. But I have no reason to doubt that Civil Defence authorities would follow well-established practice and in all proper cases stand behind the volunteer concerned in civil proceedings arising out of an accident occurring in the performance of his duty.

Mr. Adams: Is the Home Secretary aware that as the law now stands, a Civil Defence volunteer who is involved in an accident while on duty is personally liable for damages? Does he not consider that the law in this respect is totally unsatisfactory, and will he get it altered?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The law is a general law. It places personal liability on every tortfeasor even if he is acting in the course of his duty. I think the answer is that the practice in this country, which has worked very well, is that the Government, local authorities and bodies of that kind do stand behind the man in every proper case.

Dogs (Vivisection Experiments)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the fact that there were 5,723 vivisection experiments conducted on dogs under the Cruelty to Animals Act, 1874, without any an aesthetics last year, compared with 1,495 previously; what is the reason for this increase; and where they were carried out.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I must apologise for a mistake in the Annual Return of Experiments on Living Animals which I presented to the House.
A check of the figures submitted by licensees and included in the return has shown that owing to a clerical error, over 4,000 experiments relating to other animals were wrongly returned as relating to dogs. The correct figure for experiments carried out on dogs without anaesthesia in 1952 is 1,147, which is 348 less than in 1951. I will arrange for an amendment slip to be issued.

Mr. Freeman: While I am grateful for that correction, in view of the growing public disquiet on this matter, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider making a statement on this whole subject, as there has been no statement or report issued to the House since this Act was passed 80 years ago, and especially as there have been 30 million experiments on animals, on the results of which no information has been made available to this House or the public? Would the Home Secretary consider making a general statement on the whole matter, as these experiments are now running at the rate of a million a year?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The arrangement of the business of the House is not for me to decide, but I think it ought to be made clear that the procedures involved are, in the vast majority of cases, comparatively simple; that is, simple inoculations in the course of research into

the causation and treatment of canine virus diseases such as hard-pad and distemper, and the effects of various insecticides and anti-parasitic preparations. I should not like the House to think that anything except a small minority of the cases are of a serious kind.

Mr. Hastings: Am I not right in assuming that the Home Secretary has full powers of inspection in all cases in connection with these experiments?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have very full powers.

Drunkenness Offences (Liquor Supplies)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will now institute inquiries to ascertain where those convicted of drunkenness and offences connected with it have obtained their liquor.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that it would not be practicable to obtain this information.

Mr. Remnant: Will my right hon. and learned Friend re-examine this matter, because it is essential, if these offences are to decrease materially, to find the sources of supply? [An HON. MEMBER: "Stop brewing."] Would not the information also relieve from odium any of those sources of supply which are conducted in a proper manner?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I have said, it is a matter of practicability. I am ready to consider any suggestion.

Mr. J. Hudson: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider it to be part of his duty, when an offence is proved to have been caused by drunkenness, to attempt to find out the persons responsible for providing the means of the drunkenness, and, where the responsibility can be discovered, to make such persons also culprits in the courts?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That suggestion opens up an infinite variety of questions which I do not think fall within the scope of this Question.

Government Reports (Consistency)

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the Return


of Offences relating to Motor Vehicles, Table IIa, includes Monmouthshire, with Newport, in England, whereas the report for mechanically-propelled vehicles, Report 160A, includes Monmouthshire and Newport in Wales; and if he will consult with other Departments to secure consistency in this matter of Government Reports.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Freeman: To avoid any ambiguity on this subject, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman, particularly in view of his wide experience as a lawyer, submit to the House evidence which will indicate whether Monmouthshire is in England or in Wales, in neither or in both?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have too great a cowardly regard for my own safety.

Foreign Students (Visas)

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to granting visas to students from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other Iron Curtain countries wishing to visit this country for scientific or academic purposes.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Students from those countries are not as such excluded from the scope of the general policy under which, subject to certain conditions, foreign students are freely admitted for recognised courses of study. No application from an Iron Curtain country for a visa for such a purpose in recent years can be traced, but if any such application were received it would be considered on its merits.

Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that in the interests of encouraging good relations between these two countries it will be made widely known that applications for visas for these purposes will be sympathetically entertained?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Certainly. That is the purpose of my answer. They will be considered in exactly the same way as applications from students from other countries. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is always the personal check which has to be made.

Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman endeavour to get this action made reciprocal?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ellis Smith: As further evidence of the correctness of the Secretary of State's policy, may I ask him whether he is aware that the recent visit of the cultural delegations from the Soviet Union has had a very fine effect in this country? They created a great impression when they appeared on television and they themselves were very pleased with the reception given to them by the British people.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will bear that in mind.

Sexual Offences

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a report on the law relating to sexual offences drawn up by a joint committee of the Magistrates' Association and the British Medical Association in 1949, of which a copy is in his possession; and what action he has decided to take in the matter.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am familiar with this report, but, as I have already informed the House, I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the questions with which it deals.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In view of the fact that this report, published in 1949, foretold the tremendous increase in this class of offence, is it not time that a very strong effort was made to tackle the whole problem, because the vast increase in the number of offences shows that the law, particularly where young children are concerned, is failing to achieve any useful purpose whatsoever?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I told the House, at rather great length, a week ago that I have the matter under very careful consideration.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has yet considered a resolution from the Church of England Moral Welfare Council requesting him to set up an inquiry into the whole subject of homosexuality; and what reply he has made.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have received and acknowledged this resolution. I am not at present in a position to send a considered reply to the Church of England Moral Welfare Council, but I shall take their views into account in examining the general question of the law relating to sexual offences and the treatment of sexual offenders.

Mr. Robinson: In view of his rather disappointing replies last week, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that no one has suggested any lessening in the protection of children and young persons? What concerns this body and so many other people is the unsatisfactory state of the law relating to homosexuality among male adults. Has his attention been drawn to the views of a learned judge who, at Kingston, as reported in "The Times" on Monday, said that prison is no solution for these offences and frequently aggravates the causes of the trouble?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I tried to deal with this matter a week ago, and I do not want to cover the same ground again. I know that the Council has said that the duty of the State to protect young people is self-evident, but one of the matters which it wants to consider is the validity of the right given to the State to take cognisance of immoral private actions between adult male homosexuals. That, to my mind, cannot be looked at in isolation from the effect on young people. That is one of the aspects of the subject to which I attach great importance. I am considering the matter. I have not a shut mind. I know that the Council is approaching the matter with a great desire to do good and I shall be quite prepared to consider the matter further.

Sir T. Moore: In the meantime, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider establishing a hospital for these unhappy people, where they car receive suitable discipline and treatment until the legal review which he is undertaking?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I must repeat that I do not accept for a moment that prisons are not alive to this problem and doing their utmost to treat these people according to the most up-to-date views and knowledge. A week ago I gave my reasons for thinking that prison treatment is essential in a large number of cases.

Indictable Offences (Statistics)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of persons found guilty of indictable offences since the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, came into operation, giving the total figures for male and female persons; and how the number now compares with that for 1938.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I much regret that the figures which I furnished in reply to a similar Question by my hon. Friend on 26th November were those for males only, and did not include the totals for female persons. I will, with permission, circulate in the Official Report a table showing the total number of persons, and the numbers of males and females respectively, found guilty of indictable offences in England and Wales in 1938 and in the years 1945 to 1952 inclusive.

Following is the table:


year
Males
Females
Total


1938
68,679
9,784
78,463


1945
99,055
16,919
115,974


1946
92,925
14,884
107,809


1947
99,714
15,958
115,672


1948
112,181
17,203
129,384


1949
99,054
15,240
114,294


1950
100,948
15,073
116,021


1951
117,004
15,813
132,817


1952
114,859
16,188
131,047

Baby's Death (Teething Powders)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered the recent case, details of which have been supplied to him, in which a coroner's jury returned a verdict that a baby's death was caused by mercury poisoning, following an innocent over dosage of teething powders; and if he will take steps to ensure that such powders are sold to the public only in correct doses.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: According to a report in this morning's Press the company in question has decided that no further powders containing calomel should be put on the market, and that a powder free from mercury should be produced instead. I am having inquiries made.

Mr. Swingler: While welcoming the action of Messrs. Steedman and Co. in voluntarily withdrawing the calomel


teething powder, may I ask the Home Secretary whether it is not of serious importance that two young babies have died very recently from mercury poisoning as a result of heavy doses of these powders without any warning being given to those who purchased them that such overdoses should not be given? In view of the evidence, would it not be a good action by the Home Secretary now to prohibit the use of these substances?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have told the hon. Member that I am having inquiries made. I am most grateful to him for the information he has given on the matter, but the inquiries are not yet complete.

Lay Justices (Powers)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking on the resolution adopted by the County of London justices on 29th October last, of which he has a copy, requesting increased powers for lay justices in the County of London.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am carefully considering the resolution of the County of London justices, and shall send them a considered reply as soon as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: As the County of London justices have for some time said that the duties entrusted to them are of a very lenient character compared with the duties of justices outside the London area, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the best possible use is made of their services in the future?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Yes, but I would remind the House that among recent measures that have been taken to reduce the congestion in the Metropolitan courts and use the justices in question are the setting up of a special domestic proceedings court and the making of arrangements for justices to sit in a spare room at Bow Street.

Foreigners, Scotland (Naturalisation)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of foreign persons resident in Scotland whose application for British nationality has been granted during the last three years.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: From 1st January, 1951, to 30th November, 1953, 919 certificates of naturalisation were granted to persons then resident in Scotland.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Has the figure been fairly constant in post-war years, or is it very much on the increase?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The figures were 326, 273 and 320, for 11 months. There does not seem to be much variation.

U.S. Service Men (Affiliation Orders)

Mr. Collick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now in a position to make a statement on the result of the discussions on the enforcement of affiliation orders made against United States Service men; and what action he is taking.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the reply given on 7th December by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood).

Mr. Collick: Can the Home Secretary give us some information as to the course of the negotiations, and when he expects to give the House a full statement?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Discussions are taking place, as my hon. Friend said, and I hope to be able to announce the outcome before the Act is brought into force.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the question of enforcement arises in other cases, such as actions for damages following assault? Is he taking that category of cases into consideration?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I think that the cases which the hon. Member has in mind are covered by the Visiting Forces Act, in one way or the other, but questions of affiliation orders are outside the Visiting Forces Act.

Mr. Beswick: The Home Secretary knows of a particular case—of which I sent him details—which is not covered by the Visiting Forces Act, but is simply a question of enforcing a judgment given in a court of law. This question applies to cases other than affiliation orders.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am looking into that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIRE SERVICE

Administrative Staff

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the proportion of administrative staff to the total staff of the fire services.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that it is not possible to isolate the numbers of local authority employees throughout the country engaged on administrative work in connection with the fire services. In London, however, there are 2,120 operational firemen and 302 civilian staff.

Sir G. Lloyd: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the public feeling that there is a considerable number of people on the administrative staff who are there only because there is not enough for them to do in the ordinary daily duties of the fire service, and that, therefore, the list is overweighted?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have noted what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but I should remind him that the fire services have been denationalised, and by a Labour Government, and, therefore, that it is a matter for the local authorities.

Mr. Nicholson: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is a strong feeling among many of the smaller local authorities that the ratepayers are paying a large sum towards a service which is unduly top heavy with enormous numbers of staff officers, staff cars, drivers, and a great deal of saluting and general military detail which is quite inappropriate?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: That sort of attack is very easy to make and very difficult to substantiate. The fire service is of tremendous importance. The losses that are caused by fire are enormous, and, in addition, the Auxiliary Fire Service is one of the most important items in Civil Defence. I should not like anything to go out from this House either to discourage the excellent work of the fire service as a whole or to discourage recruiting for the Auxiliary Fire Service, which is most important to Civil Defence.

Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Home Secretary aware that some of his hon. Friends

appear to be advocating the diminution of the municipal fire services in order to provide greater opportunities for private enterprise?

Fires (Attendance)

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the total of hours spent in attendance at fires by the fire services in the years 1950 to 1952.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Between 1950 and 1952 members of local authority fire brigades attended 209,933 fires. The time of attendance varied from a few minutes to many hours, but I regret that information about the total number of hours spent in attendance at fires is not included in the available statistics.

Mr. Woodburn: Could we be told whether this refers to England and Wales? It is a little difficult for Scottish Members to ask questions without knowing whether this Question relates to Scotland or to England and Wales.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have assumed, since I am the unworthy recipient of the Question, that it is England and Wales.

Fuel Consumption

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the proportion of motor fuel used by the fire services in attending fires in 1951 and 1952 to the total motor fuel consumption of the service; and what was the total gallonage used in those years.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that the information is not available, since no central record is kept of the fuel consumed by the local authorities' fire brigades.

Major Legge-Bourke: Can my right hon. and learned Friend say whether or not the amount of petrol used is more than it used to be for purposes other than those for dealing with fires?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: As I explained to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Sir G. Lloyd), the service is now denationalised and there is no central record, so I cannot help my hon. and gallant Friend.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the Home Secretary aware that hon. Members on this side are whole-heartedly behind him in rejecting the hostile Questions which have been directed against gallant firemen? Will he resist pressure from his hon. Friends to reintroduce horse-drawn fire vehicles?

Major Legge-Bourke: On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) referred to my Question as being a hostile one—

Mr. Bottomley: I said "hostile Questions."

Major Legge-Bourke: The right hon. Member referred to my Question being a hostile Question. May I ask for that to be withdrawn? All I asked for were facts.

Mr. Speaker: As I heard the right hon. Gentleman, he spoke of hostile questions in general. That does not imply anything which needs to be withdrawn.

LIST SHOWING PROPORTION OF WHOLE-TIME OFFICERS TO MEN


—
Strength at 31st December, 1949
Strength at 31st December, 1950
Strength at 31st December, 1951
Strength at 31st December, 1952


Officers
…
…
…
1,542
1,606
1,630
1,634


Other ranks
…
…
15,784
16,255
16,345
16,567

Officers (Motor Cars)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many motor cars are provided for the use of officer grades for supervisory duties in the fire services as compared with the number provided at 1st April, 1948.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I regret that the information is not available.

Officer Grades

Sir G. Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will publish a list of the officer grades in the fire services now and at 1st April, 1948, and a further list showing the proportion of officers to men in each of the years 1949 to 1952.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Since the answer is long and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is a list of officer grades for men in the fire service at the present date. The list for 1st April, 1948, is identical:
Chief Officer.
Assistant Chief Officer.
Divisional Officer I.
Divisional Officer II.
Divisional Officer III.
Assistant Divisional Officer.
Station Officer.
Not all these grades are required in all brigades; the number of grades and the number of officers in each grade is fixed by the establishment scheme for the brigade.

Mr. Nicholson: In reply to a supplementary question which I asked earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend implied that I was attacking the whole fire brigade. Is he aware that we appreciate the work of the fire brigades, but feel that they are overstaffed?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: My hon. Friend has made that clear.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have not all these Questions been designed to show that the fire service is costing too much? Is it not a fact that we lose many millions of pounds per annum from fires, and that the expenditure is very low in relation to the return?

Allowances

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what allowances, in addition to pay, can be claimed by members of the fire services: in what circumstances; and whether there has been any increase in the number of these allowances since the Fire Services Act came into force.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Members of the fire services are entitled to claim allowances for travelling, subsistence, lodging and removal expenses when these are incurred in the course of duty. Rent allowances, uniform allowances and allowances in respect of additional responsibilities or special duties are also payable in certain cases. The conditions under which these allowances are payable are laid down in the Fire Services (Ranks and Conditions of Service) Regulations. There has been a small increase in the number of allowances since the Act came into force.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the Questions about the fire services which have been asked by hon. Members opposite, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman why his hon. Friends do not put out their own fires and be done with it?

COST OF LIVING INDEX

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that for old people the most important items of essential expenditure are food, fuel and light; and if he will therefore recommend a change in the weighting of items in the Interim Index of Retail Prices so that food, fuel and light occupy the first three places when the cost of living for old age pensioners is considered.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Sir Walter Monckton): I am aware that different types of household have different expenditure patterns. Decisions about weighting the index will not be taken until the results of the inquiry are available.

Miss Burton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the real problem for the old people is this immediate winter? Is he also aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance stated that old people had need of these three particular things? Can he not arrange for the matter to be urgently considered before the winter months are over?

Sir W. Monckton: As the hon. Lady will discover, as much information as possible is given, not only about these items—food is already 40 per cent. of the total of the index—but about the other items that make it up, in the monthly Ministry of Labour Gazette. Any further information that we can make available will be given, but to alter the weighting of the index in the meantime would be contrary to the unanimous advice of the committee which deals with the matter.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a fact that the items in question here are weighted only to the extent of about 46 per cent. in the Interim Index of Retail Prices? Is the Minister prepared to say that no old age pensioner spends more than half his income on both fuel and light?

Sir W. Monckton: I should not be prepared to say that. I have not checked the percentages, but I will take them from the hon. Member.

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a detailed breakdown of the 11 per cent. increase which has taken place in the price of services since October, 1951, as shown in table 147 of the Monthly Digest of Statistics.

Sir W. Monckton: For the four main sections covered by the Services group of the retail prices index, the percentage increases in charges since October, 1951, were approximately as follow: Travelling expenses, 20; postal charges, 6; charges for entertainment, 10; other services, 5.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not a fact that this category is weighted at approximately 9 per cent. in the retail prices index? Taking the increase in the price of services with the 14 per cent. increase in food prices since October, 1951, and 9½ per cent. increase in rent and rates since October, 1951, would the Minister not


agree that these particular things hit hardest the poorer sections of the community, and resign in protest against this fundamental injustice?

EMPLOYMENT

American (Acting Permit)

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: asked the Minister of Labour why he has refused to grant a permit to Miss Yolande Donlan to enable her to act the part of Peter Pan in London this Christmas.

Sir W. Monckton: Permission was notrefused, but the application was not pursued by the theatre management when a British actress was engaged for the part.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that this application was with his Ministry for a fortnight and then had to be withdrawn because the management obviously had to get on with casting this piece owing to the imminence of Christmas? Is he also aware that during that fortnight an official of his Department, whose name I will give him, informed the management, on the telephone, that in his, the official's view, this part was not suitable to be played by an American? Is he further aware that the most famous Peter Pan in history, Miss Pauline Chase, who played this part seven Christmases running in London, was an American?

Sir W. Monckton: The principle which I try to apply at the Ministry is that when there is a suitable British candidate for a post there is no need for someone else. In this particular case, I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity of seeing what a good selection has been made to play the part of Peter Pan this year.

Mr. Snow: Can the Minister say whether Miss Yolande Donlan is a refugee from the never-never land of Senator McCarthy?

Mr. Mellish: Would the Minister be good enough to give a permit for the part to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers)?

Mr. G. Jeger: Is the Minister aware that his views on this question are entirely in accordance with British Equity and

that the large number of British actors and actresses who are out of work will fully agree with his decision?

Sir W. Monckton: The decision in these matters does rest with the Ministry, but a few days do sometimes pass—I do not know whether it was a fortnight in this case—during which there is an opportunity to consider the views of British Equity and of the management. During these few days before this decision was reached by the Ministry, the management found Miss Kirkwood, and are satisfied.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that it would cause consternation in artistic circles in the widest sense of the word if the Ministry of Labour had to decide who were the best actors to take certain parts? I said the Ministry, not the Minister.

Sir W. Monckton: I am very glad of the distinction, but I am not at all sure that I want to add to my labours.

Statutory Instrument No. 1376 (Amendment)

Mr. Morley: asked the Minister of Labour when he proposes to amend Statutory Instrument No. 1376, so that it can be used by professional organisations.

Sir W. Monckton: I am unable to say when such an amendment might be made, but I am keeping the question under review.

Mr. Morley: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that he promised to consider an amendment to this Instrument over a year ago? Would he be kind enough to say what has prevented him from making it?

Sir W. Monckton: I say, quite frankly, that this is a matter in which the difficulties which I have had to meet were much greater than I had, I hope, reason to anticipate at the beginning. I do not want to detail them because it would make my task more difficult in overcoming them, but they do include two difficulties. The first is the doubt whether all those who would be included in such an amendment as this would have cases suitable for this particular tribunal, and the second is my doubt whether the National Joint Advisory Council would now support the type of amendment which the hon. Gentleman has in view.

Sir H. Williams: Can my right hon. and learned Friendsay in what year this was published, as these Orders have to be identified by year and not only by number?

Sir W. Monckton: 1951.

Mr. Isaacs: The Minister mentioned the National Joint Advisory Council as being the body most valuable on all industrial matters, but as on this question the organisations involved were not associated in any way with N.J.A.C.—the local authorities, teachers' organisations, and so on—will he bear in mind that there should be the necessary consultations on that side?

Sir W. Monckton: I have been keeping in touch with these bodies and I have mentioned the National Joint Advisory Council not only for the reason which the right hon. Gentleman gave, which is important to my work, but because I have reason to doubt whether, for the moment, they are persuaded that there ought to be such an amendment.

Mr. G. Thomas: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered the question of applying the Order to certain professional organisations but not to all, because the teaching profession is very anxious to have the powers of this Order.

Sir W. Monckton: I certainly have considered that.

Mental Hospital Staffs (Recruitment)

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Labour what proposals he has for initiating a special campaign to attract recruits to mental hospital staffs.

Sir W. Monckton: My Department, with the advice of the National Advisory Committee on recruitment of Nurses and Midwives, is constantly endeavouring to recruit nursing staff for these and other hospitals. We are now concentrating on the recruitment problems of mental and mental deficiency hospitals and are giving all possible assistance to the promotion of local recruiting campaigns for meeting their needs.
As the hon. Member will know, memoranda on the subject have been sent to hospital authorities by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health. Programmes are being arranged in consultation with regional hospital boards.

Mr. Mellish: The position is really desperate, as the Minister knows, and desperate measures must be taken to solve it, because there are thousands of empty beds in mental hospitals and colonies throughout the country through lack of staff. Will he arrange to spend some money in the national Press to let it be known how serious the position is?

Sir W. Monckton: From his own activities, the hon. Gentleman is well aware of this deficiency of mental nurses, and I hope that this Question and answer will draw attention to the position. In addition to local campaigns undertaken up to now, up to March next 15 other local campaigns have been planned to take place, some in the area which is the particular centre of interest of the hon. Member.

Mr. Alport: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that one of the great difficulties is the rapid wastage particularly in the category of nursing assistants, and would he look particularly to the importance of improving the status and raising the position of that category?

Sir W. Monckton: That is a matter which is certainly under my constant attention.

NATIONAL SERVICE

Personal Case

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour if he will grant a further postponement of call-up to Mr. Glyn Caudwell, about whom the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary on 29th October, in view of the fact that he is unable at present to make arrangements to carry on his business in his absence.

Sir W. Monckton: As the hon. Member has already been informed, this case has been considered by the Military Service (Hardship) Committee in accordance with the procedure laid down by the National Service Acts and I have no power to vary their decision. In the circumstances, however, I am arranging for the case to be brought before the umpire, who is the highest authority in these matters. Meanwhile, of course, Mr. Caudwell will not be called up.

Mr. Swingler: Thank you very much.

Air Transport Crews (Call-up)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Labour if he will review the liabilities of aircrew members of the air transport service under the National Service Act and place these merchant airmen on a similar basis to members of the Merchant Navy.

Sir W. Monckton: No, Sir. There are special reasons for suspending the call-up of merchant seamen and these do not apply to aircrew members of the air transport service.

Mr. Beswick: In time of emergency would not these aircrews be expected to carry on in the same way? Is it not really a waste of national assets to take them off flying under the National Service Act?

Sir W. Monckton: It is not possible for me to deal with that in detail now. I should like to know precisely what aircrew members the hon. Member has in mind. So far as pilots and navigators are concerned, they begin at 21 and what I am dealing with are boys of 18 to 20. The real reason why the Merchant Navy is differently treated is that the Royal Navy does not require all these National Service men and that, as merchant seamen will be wanted for naval purposes in an emergency, we need them where they are to avoid waste of time.

Mr. Beswick: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman listen to the representations on this matter from the appropriate organisations?

Sir W. Monckton: Certainly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal to state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Debate on Television Development, which will arise on a Government Motion inviting the House to give general approval to the Government's proposals.
TUESDAY, 15TH DECEMBER—Committee and remaining stages: Consolidated Fund Bill.
The debate on Television will be resumed and concluded.
Committee stage: Money Resolutions relating to the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Bills.
The order of business on Wednesday and Thursday will be announced later, but it will include a debate on foreign affairs and a debate on an Opposition Motion of censure on colonial affairs which, it is understood, is being tabled today.
I hope to be in a position tomorrow, Friday, to make a statement after the return of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
We still hope that all necessary business can be completed to enable the House to adjourn on Friday, 18th December, for the Christmas Recess until Tuesday, 19th January next.

Mr. Attlee: The Committee stage of the Money Resolutions on the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Bills is likely to be a highly controversial matter. I understood discussions were proceeding with local authorities. Is it necessary to take this Committee stage at present? It is almost certain to run late on two Motions which will be very controversial.

Mr. Crookshank: Of course, I do not know that it will be controversial; the Resolutions have not yet been tabled. My right hon. Friend the Minister, who has been having discussions yesterday and today on this subject with the local authorities, hopes to put down a Motion to appear on the Order Paper tomorrow. Then we shall be able to see how controversial it is likely to be. In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, who asked whether it was necessary to have these Money Resolutions now, in the view of my right hon. Friend that is highly desirable.

Mr. Woodburn: Further to that point, yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he was proposing to meet the county and other authorities on Monday. As these bodies have not themselves been able to meet to consider this matter, it seems very unlikely that any decision will be come to on Monday which could be debated in the House next week. Would it not be better to postpone the Money Resolutions until the matter is cleared up?

Mr. Crookshank: I was dealing with the English position when I spoke first. If any difficulties arise about the Scottish business, it is open to reconsideration.

Mr. Attlee: If the Scottish one may be postponed, is there any reason why the English one should not be postponed?

Captain Waterhouse: Is it not rather unusual to give time for a Motion of Censure which has not been put on the Order Paper? Has it really taken 10 days for the Opposition to come to a decision?

Mr. Crookshank: I understand that it has been handed in.

Mr. E. Fletcher: May we take it from what the Leader of the House as just said that the Money Resolutions which are on the Order Paper are to be withdrawn?

Mr. Crookshank: I think that might well be the implication.

Mr. Ernest Davies: May I ask the Leader of the House when it is proposed to have a debate on the Thesiger Report, in view of its commendation of the road passenger services of the British Transport Commission and its decision that there is no need for denationalisation of road passenger transport?

Mr. Crookshank: I am not proposing to find time for that purpose at present.

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to the television debate, the Leader of the House will know that there is a very general—I will not say a unanimous, but a widespread—public feeling that this is an occasion on which it would be a great pity if the party Whips were put on. [Laughter.] I am sorry to hear that laughter, because it ignores the very general public feeling that it is a pity to drag the B.B.C. and all its affairs into party politics. [Interruption.] I could say some other things which it is being dragged into as well. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore—with, if I may say so, deep sincerity—that the Government should be willing to take the Whips off on this occasion? May I say that if the Government do so, the Opposition will also do so? We are not asking the Government to do something we would not do. We will take the Whips off if

the Government will do the same. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in response to a great mass of decent public opinion, to give consideration to this request.

Mr. Crookshank: The Prime Minister made some observations on this subject on 10th November. As far as I know, it is a matter for each party to decide for itself whether or not it will have a Whip.

Mr. Morrison: I follow the point. But surely the right hon. Gentleman does not think that this is a matter upon which the parties act differently? If the Government put their Whips on, it is expecting rather too much that someone else will take the Whips off. The offer I am making is a perfectly fair one, and it reflects public opinion in this matter. I am definitely offering to the Government that if they will take the Whips off, we will take the Whips off. I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that that is a fair proposition which would receive the approval of the country as a whole.

Mr. Crookshank: I really have nothing more to say than to refer hon. Members to what the Prime Minister said and to note what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) has said. But I still maintain that it is the business of each party to decide what action it will take.

Mr. M. Lindsay: Reverting to the Motion of Censure, has my right hon. Friend any information whether its terms of reference are to be sufficiently wide to discuss the fact that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), a Privy Councillor, is now writing for a journal in Cairo which is overwhelmingly hostile to this country?

Mr. Crookshank: I am afraid that I cannot say what may or may not be in order, however deplorable some of the things to which reference has been made.

Sir D. Savory: Can my right hon. Friend say when we may expect the long-promised legislation to give equity to the widows of the Royal Irish Constabulary?

Mr. Crookshank: I know my hon. Friend's deep anxiety on this problem, but I am afraid there will not be a debate on any Bill on that subject next week.

Miss Lee: Following the reference to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), may I ask that before a personal matter of that nature is raised, hon. Members should take their information from responsible sources? Then they would know more accurately what they are talking about. The second question I wish to ask is whether the Leader of the House can tell us when we are to have the Bill to abolish night baking, as promised in the Queen's Speech?

Mr. Crookshank: It will be presented very soon indeed.

Brigadier Medlicott: Can the Leader of the House say when it will be possible for time to be found to debate the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation?

Mr. Crookshank: We have only just received that Report and the Minutes of Evidence are not yet in the hands of hon. Members. I should like to say at once that I am sure the whole House is most grateful to our colleagues for the care and attention they have given to this important problem. I hope the matter can be ventilated in different parts of the House and, in due course, come before us.

Mr. F. M. Bennett: If the Motion of Censure on Colonial Affairs is on the Table now, can it be read out to us so that we shall know what it contains before the Opposition take it off again?

Mr. Crookshank: I do not know whether I am in order in reading from a copy which has been given to me. I assume it is the right copy. The notice is to move the following Motion in the names of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite on affairs in Africa:
That this House expresses its grave disquiet at the handling by Her Majesty's Government of affairs in Africa.

Mr. H. Morrison: With regard to the Housing (Repairs and Rents) Money Resolution—[Hon. Members: "Oh."] I note the complete contempt for local government by the other side of the House. At the request of hon. Members on this side of the House, including myself, the Minister of Housing and Local Government was good enough not to move the Financial Resolution after the Second Reading of the Bill last week. The same is true of the Secretary of

State for Scotland last night. Is the Leader of the House aware that when the local authorities meet the Minister, as I understand they are now doing, they will have to deal with many complicated matters? They must then report back to their local authorities and to the local authority associations, and it is not fair to rush them. If the matter were the other way round, and the local authorities were asking the Government to consider some complicated matters, the Government would want adequate time in which to consider them. Is it not reasonable, therefore, that the local authorities should have adequate time now? Surely if we take the Financial Resolutions quite early when we return, that will meet the general convenience, because the matters dealt with in those Resolutions will not arise until the financial Clauses in the Bills are reached.

Mr. Crookshank: The right hon. Gentleman seems to dart from Africa to local government and back again, and all I can say in reply to him is that it is quite wrong to say that the Government or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are showing any contempt for local government at all. In point of fact, my right hon. Friend has had discussions before with the local authorities. This is the second series which is going on now, and he is quite satisfied that they are being treated perfectly properly and fairly or he would not have asked me to announce to the House the course proposed.

Captain Pilkington: Since it would appear that the Motion of Censure for next week is wide enough to consider the articles written by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), may we know before the debate takes place whether he has, in fact, written for that section of the Labour Party which wants the liquidation of the British Empire?

Mr. Speaker: We are concerned with questions on the business statement, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not abuse the opportunity which is given them of finding out what the business is to be for next week.

Miss Lee: On a point of order. If references to any Member of this House are made in frivolous or unscrupulous


parts of the Press, is it not the custom of this House that the Member so referred to should be informed before a statement is made; and secondly, that those statements should be based on the facts?

Captain Pilkington: The right hon. Gentleman should be in his place.

Mr. Speaker: I would say, in general terms, if an hon. Member wishes to refer to another hon. Member, it is customary to give him notice.

Mr. Hale: Further to that point of order. Is it not within the immediate recollection of the House that twice a disgusting smear has been made against aright hon. Gentleman in his absence and apparently no notice of any kind, sort or description was given, though it would have been perfectly easy for a note to have been sent to him, as is always sent from this side of the House to any hon. Member on the other side to whom we intend to refer? I ask, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance on this matter, and whether we are now to take it that this rule is in abeyance, and I shall be able to say what I think of hon. Members opposite from time to time without giving notice, a privilege which I should very much like to have.

Mr. Speaker: I should not like to commit myself in advance on whether anything the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) may say is in order or not, but I have stated the rule in general terms. It is sometimes broken, but breaches are unfortunate and should be avoided. On the other hand, hon. Members frequently refer to a statement of policy made by an hon. Member from one side or the other, and that is quite a different matter.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not a fact that this is not so much a rule of the House as a rule of good taste?

Mr. Speaker: The two categories of rule are not incompatible.

Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that the foreign affairs debate will be the last opportunity before the Christmas Recess that hon. Members will have of asking the Government to make a statement on current foreign affairs, and if the Motion having been put down

by the Opposition means that we cannot have a two-day debate on both T.V. and Foreign Affairs, will my right hon. Friend consider the fact that a great many Members of this House think that foreign affairs are a far more important issue than T.V.?

Mr. Crookshank: That may well be, but the fact remains that two days were promised a long time ago for a debate on television, and I should not like to go back on that decision, though I can appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend says. The complications which have been brought into the rest of the week's business are not my fault.

Mr. Jay: On that subject, can the Leader of the House give us any reason whatever for refusing to respond to the appeal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) in connection with the T.V. debate?

Mr. Speaker: I think all these questions have been answered before. We had better get on.

COURT-MARTIAL ALLEGATIONS, KENYA (INQUIRY)

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House make the statement which I promised as soon as I had had an opportunity of considering the proceedings of the trial by court-martial of Captain Griffiths. These proceedings have arrived, and I am today placing four copies of them in the Library of the House of Commons.
I can assure the House that nobody deplores an incident of this kind more than I do, especially since the good name of the British Army is at stake. I would at the start remind hon. Members that the Army has been carrying out difficult operations of this type both in Kenya and Malaya in a way which has won them universal credit among all races. Nevertheless, I take a very grave view of this incident and of the fact that the proceedings suggest that there may have been other incidents.
I have been in close touch with General Erskine since the case of Captain Griffiths


first arose. He has already taken special steps to ensure that such a thing will not occur again by issuing a special directive to every officer and obtaining written assurances from all Commanders that there are no such things as score boards, monetary rewards or similar practices within units.
He is determined to probe this matter deeply and in a signal to me he stated that he conceived it to be his duty to uncover everything and to force into court even the most unpleasant crimes and that it should in every way be his aim to clean up rather than to cover up. I have fully confirmed General Erskine's interpretation of his duty. In addition, he himself recommended a Court of Inquiry and this, in the circumstances, I think is the correct step. I am therefore sending Lieutenant-General Sir Kenneth McLean and a representative of the Army Legal Services by air to Kenya on Saturday; the third member of the court will be found locally. Their terms of reference will be:
To inquire into and report upon the allegations which were made at the trial of Captain Griffiths in regard to—

(i) the offering to soldiers of monetary rewards for Mau Mau 'kills';
(ii) the keeping and exhibition of score boards recording official and unofficial 'kills' and other activities in operations against Mau Mau;
(iii) the fostering of a competitive spirit amongst units in regard to 'kills' in anti-Mau Mau operations."
General Erskine will forward the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry, together with his recommendations, to me and as soon as I have examined them I will, if the House so wishes, make a further report.

Mr. Shinwell: Whilst I appreciate, as no doubt the whole House does, the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman to probe into this matter, which has aroused considerable public interest, may I put two short points to him? First, regarding the personnel of the court of inquiry, I commend the appointment of General McLean, if I may do so without condescension. It is a most admirable appointment. But is the right hon. Gentleman certain that it is wise to include on the court of inquiry a legal representative from the War Office?
Secondly—and may I put it rather more positively—is it not unwise to appoint somebody locally who might possibly be prejudiced either one way or the other? Would it not be better to appoint another military officer or perhaps a civilian lawyer from this country, and another person of either category, also from this country, rather than to appoint a local person to the court? Do I understand the answer of the right hon. Gentleman to mean that when General Erskine forwards the recommendations of the court of inquiry, he will take the House into his confidence, apart from what he said about the possibility of the House desiring him so to do?

Mr. Head: With regard to the first point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, there is no alternative between a civil inquiry in open court and a military inquiry of the type I have proposed. I gave careful thought to the question of appointing an open inquiry with civilian members of the court, but that has several disadvantages, the main one being that no soldier or civilian can be compelled to give evidence. Furthermore, any soldier giving evidence has to be warned that anything he says may be used in evidence against him, whereas in a court of inquiry of the type that is proposed all such evidence is privileged and cannot be used against him in any subsequent proceedings. For that reason, I believe that in following up this matter and getting to the bottom of it, we are likely to achieve much better results in the way I have proposed than by having it in open court. Therefore, the question of having a civil local officer on the court does not arise because there cannot be one on a court of inquiry.
As regards the question of what I shall do when General Erskine reports to me the findings of the court, I have already assured the House that there is no desire to cover up in this matter. When I receive the proceedings, I shall give the House a frank report of what they contain, tell hon. Members the conclusions, and anything else that may have been uncovered, since I owe it to the House to give hon. Members a full and frank statement.

Mr. Shinwell: May I put the short point on the appointment of somebody


local? Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate whom he has in mind? Is he a military person and of what rank?

Mr. Head: As I have said, there will be two officers going from this country. I think there is a good deal in having an officer from the Army selected locally who will be able to give the court a background of the geographical and physical situation and the various other problems of operations. [Hon. Members: "No."] I can assure hon. Members that to have an impartial officer who knows local difficulties, and the conditions under which men are operating, in my opinion renders a most useful service to the court. Personally, I have absolute confidence that an officer like General McLean will not in any way be swayed or biased by the fact that one officer from Kenya is on the court.

Mr. Shinwell: In order to elucidate this interesting point—because, unless it is cleared up, it might give rise to considerable disquiet—may I ask that this military representative who is to be appointed from local personnel will not be associated with the K.R.R.? He would belong to another battalion.

Mr. Head: The officer concerned will be selected in order to ensure that he has an unbiased view and that he is in no way connected with any possible incidents or accusations of any kind.

Mr. Gough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the King's Royal Rifle Corps? Surely he meant the King's African Rifles?

Mr. Shinwell: indicated assent.

Mr. Gough: I hope that, for the sake of the record, that will be put right.

Mr. Strachey: Apart from the composition of the court, can the Secretary of State at least assure the House that this inquiry will be of the most searching character in order to assure the House and the country that the incidents connected with Captain Griffiths' action, and the other incidents which appear to have come to light in the trial, were totally unrepresentative of the conduct of the Army in this sphere and others, and to see to it that they have no parallel elsewhere? My second question is, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that

the inevitable moral which we must draw from this is that if the Army is given more and more of these odious tasks, which are imposed on it by the situation which has arisen from the colonial policy of the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—the temper and morale of the Army are bound to suffer?

Mr. Head: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the object of this inquiry is to go deeply into this matter in order to get to the bottom of everything, and I personally think that we shall find at the end that the good name of the Army has been cleared. As regards the second question, I do not think that I could make any useful comment.

Brigadier Peto: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Captain Griffiths is at this moment a free man or is he under arrest on any other charge?

Mr. Head: Captain Griffiths is a free man. At the moment he is suspended from duty, and the legal authorities are now considering the question of whether or not any further proceedings should be instituted against him.

Mr. A. Henderson: May I ask the Minister whether, in deciding how much he will report to the House, he will bear in mind the action that was taken in 1943 in connection with the investigation into serious allegations against the conduct of the detention camp at Fort Darland, when the inquiry, which was not held in public, was followed by the whole Report being presented to Parliament?

Mr. Head: Yes, I can assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I have no desire to conceal matters from the House, and when I have received this report I will, if the House wishes, give a full account of what I have learned.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—because I think a lot of people do not understand—why Captain Griffiths was prosecuted for murder before a court martial and not a civil court? Secondly, if the court martial disclosed these awful allegations, why are the results of the court martial being inquired into by another military tribunal instead of by a civil tribunal?

Mr. Head: The proceedings of the court martial contain the evidence which suggests that there may have been other


incidents which I believe should be gone into closely. The present court of inquiry has been set up to inquire into these matters. As regards the question why he was tried by a court martial and not a civil court, this arose in Kenya and it is a matter in which the judgment of the local civil authorities in Kenya is paramount. A court martial was decided upon. It is perfectly in order, and in accordance with precedent, to have a court martial for a murder trial, and that took place in accordance with the decision of the authorities in Kenya.

Mr. Grimond: Can we be told whether other charges are pending arising out of other incidents? If so, whilst I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said about their not incriminating themselves at the inquiry, what will be the position of the people involved in other incidents if they are called before the inquiry?

Mr. Head: It would be improper for me at this stage to say whether there are other charges pending, because they might well come out of the inquiry as it proceeds. As regards soldiers or others giving evidence at the court of inquiry, none of that evidence can be used against them at a subsequent trial but that does not prejudice the possibility of their being tried on things that come out of the inquiry.

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE (PRIVILEGE COMPLAINT)

Mr. Lewis: I desire to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, so that we may have your advice, guidance and opinion, a matter which I feel may prove to be a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. The subject matter of my submission is an article in the "Daily Worker" of9th December, written by a Mr. Patrick Gold ring. I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, that I intended to raise this matter, so no doubt you have obtained a copy of the paper in question. I know that you have seen the article and if you turn to page 2 of the paper—

Mr. Speaker: I should not like the hon. Member to proceed on a false assumption. I have just glanced at the article. I rely upon him to tell the House what it is about.

Mr. Lewis: In a few moments, Mr. Speaker, you will realise how inadvertently I am under a false impression, because you will find that I raised this matter with the Clerks at the Table. As you will observe, on page 2 of this paper a number of statements are made which I want to quote to you and to the House. The article is headed in large black type, "M.P.s Vote Money Into Their Own Pockets." It states:
When they vote for the Bill to raise your rent Tory M.P.s are voting money into their own pockets.
All of them are doing this in the general sense that raising rents, by increasing landlords' and property companies' profit, benefits the whole class that Tory M.P.s represent in Parliament.
The article goes on:
But in addition to this, many Tory M.P.s will get a direct, personal cash advantage if they succeed in making their rent Bill law.
At least 20 Tory M.P.s are or have been directors of property or estate companies which may be expected to increase their already handsome profits if the Bill goes through.
At least seven others are directors of investment or insurance companies which have substantial assets invested in house property. If rents go up their holdings will be worth more.
The article proceeds to mention by name some 24 hon. Members on the Government side of the House and the article claims that those hon. Members only voted in favour of the Second Reading of the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill because it was to their financial advantage to do so. The article mentions the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Law), the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor), the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) and the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) and some 20 other names. It clearly states that these hon. Members were not interested in dealing with this matter on its merits but for their own personal financial reward.
My first submission is that if the statements contained in this article are untrue and not in accordance with the facts, the paper and the author of that article are guilty of a breach of Privilege against the 24 hon. Members concerned and automatically against the honour and dignity of this House. My second submission is that if,


however, the facts and statements contained in the article are proved and verified, as the article states, then there is a strong possibility that the 24 hon. Members who are mentioned are themselves guilty of a breach of Privilege in that they voted on the Second Reading of the Bill without disclosing their financial interest. It may be, therefore, that the Bill received a Second Reading incorrectly and not in accordance with the usual custom, traditions and privileges of this honourable House. It may well be, therefore, that that decision and the Division could be and might be declared nulland void.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is himself in danger of going out of order on this matter. He must not himself even inferentially make charges against hon. Members, or else he himself will be guilty of a breach of Order.

Mr. Elliot: Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members: There is no point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Does the right hon. Gentleman rise to a point of order?

Mr. Elliot: Yes, Sir. I rise to ask whether the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), who is making an attack on several hon. Members on this side of the House, has given notice to them that he intended to deal with this matter.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the House to remember that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is making a submission on Privilege and this should be listened to in silence.

Mr. Lewis: In answer to the interjection by the right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Mr. Elliot), I should like to say that I spent about one hour writing in longhand to every one of the 24 Members mentioned in the article to say that I was raising this matter on the Floor of the House and each of the 24 has had an urgent message.
My final point is that, as hon. Members know, it is the custom to raise an issue such as this immediately it is brought to the notice of the hon. Member

concerned. I did not see this article until 5.30 p.m. yesterday and immediately I took it to the Clerk at the Table. I must ask you, therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement that I have made, to say that this is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege and should be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: Will the hon. Member bring to the Table the article of which he complains?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Sir.

Copy of the said newspaper delivered in.

Mr. Speaker: I must have the whole newspaper.

Mr. Lewis: It is the whole newspaper.

Mr. Speaker: First of all, to deal with the question of time, it is a strict rule in matters of Privilege that they must be brought before the House at the earliest opportunity, and in the past it has been held that, in connection with London newspapers of daily circulation, they ought to be produced to the House on the day of issue. But I find a past instance in which this particular paper was concerned when my predecessor allowed the same interval of time as has elapsed between the time the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) noticed this matter and today. So I say that the hon. Member is not barred on the question of time, though I draw the attention of the House to this very important rule of our procedure that, in order to gain precedence over the Orders of the Day in matters of Privilege, the matter must be brought up at the earliest possible moment.
I have listened to the hon. Member and have looked at the article concerned and I am prepared to rule that it constitutes a prima facie case of breach of Privilege. I am not saying whether it constitutes a breach of Privilege or not. I ask the hon. Member whether he concludes with a Motion that the matter be committed to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not customary—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am myself rising to a point of order. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) must first move his Motion.

Mr. Lewis: In view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Bellenger: My point of order is something in the nature of a point of procedure. Should not the correct procedure be for the Clerk first to read to the House the matter complained of?

Mr. Bowles: It has been read.

Mr. Speaker: It has been frequently ruled that if the article has been read in substance by the hon. Member raising the matter, the Speaker can dispense with that. That disposes of that point of order.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

BILLS PRESENTED

LANDLORD AND TENANT BILL

"to provide security of tenure for occupying tenants under certain leases of residential property at low rents and for occupying sub-tenants of tenants under such leases; to enable tenants occupying property for business, professional or certain other purposes to obtain new

tenancies in certain cases; to amend and extend the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1927, the Leasehold Property (Repairs) Act, 1938, and section eighty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925; to confer jurisdiction on the County Court in certain disputes between landlords and tenants; to make provision for the termination of tenancies of derelict land; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Sir David Maxwell Fyfe; supported by Mr. Harold Macmillan, The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL

"to extend to ten years the period during which advances may be made to the National Research Development Corporation out of the Consolidated Fund and during which the Board of Trade may with the approval of the Treasury waive payments by way of interest on such advances; to make further provision as to the functions of the Corporation relating to research; and otherwise to amend the Development of Inventions Act, 1948";presented by Mr. Peter Thorneycroft; supported by Mr. Henry Strauss and Mr. Bevins; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 47].

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.13 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I do not think this occasion ought to pass without a word of thanks to those who performed the laborious and lengthy task of collecting the dead wood which we are engaged in cutting today. I am sure that the Attorney-General would agree with that.

The Attorney-General (Sir Lionel Heald): I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member. I am sure that both sides of the House would wish to join in thanking those who have done this work. The metaphor adopted by the hon. and learned Member is not quite the same as that which has been previously used in connection with this kind of Bill. I think it was that great authority on these matters, Sir Cecil Carr, who pointed out some five years ago that
Statute law revision is a crematorium for dead bodies of law, not a lethal chamber for tiresome invalids who are still alive.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILM PRODUCTION (SPECIAL LOANS) BILL

As amended, considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to say only one or two words because the House is anxious to pass on to other business which it regards, rightly or wrongly, as more important. Perhaps, as a courtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, it would be right for me to say one thing. During the deliberations in Committee we asked that the Report stage of the Bill and the Third Reading should be taken on a separate day so that we could have an opportunity of considering Amendments on the Report stage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) and I drafted some fairly extensive Amendments for discussion which were related primarily to the type of detail which should be given when the Minister reported to the House in respect of the cancellation of obligations or arrangements that were made, and we had intended to raise some discussion on them. It was obvious, in view of the way that the Bill had been discussed, that in the end we should not have forced that matter to a Division and we should have had to accept such assurances which the Parliamentary Secretary would have given us, and in view of the obvious desire of the House to discuss the subsequent business at length we felt that we were meeting the desire of the House in not in the circumstances insisting on a discussion on the Report stage of the Bill.
I hope that due notice will be taken of our magnanimity in this matter and of the friendly hand of co-operation which my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham and I, in particular, have extended to the Government in this matter, and of the facilities we are giving gratuitously for the speedy passing of Government business. We have been trying to do this all day, as the President of the Board of Trade knows; upstairs we have been moving, and here we are nearly through.

Mr. Frederick Gough: I was a little concerned when the hon. Member said that he had given these facilities gratuitously. How could he give them otherwise without running into the danger of committing a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Hale: I had not thought of that, but will give it my attention in the future. It seems to open up attractive vistas, and the opportunity to explore every avenue is one of which I should like to take advantage.
On Third Reading, may I be permitted to say that we have never opposed the Bill? We have opposed the lack of precautions in the Bill. As I have said before, it is rather surprising to find these apostles of private enterprise coming and asking for Government subsidies for competitive industry while still keeping it competitive, although they have often done it in another form. In essence, however, it was a Socialist Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham and I were conscious of one or two perfectly well-known facts about it which demanded a little more scrutiny than otherwise might have been necessary.
The first of those is the slight caviar complex of the film industry. If one is asked to discuss films with film magnates, the discussions do not normally take place in what is vulgarly known as the "spit and sawdust" bar of the local "pub." There is a caviar and Park Lane complex about the industry that for a moment inhibits one from writing out blank cheques without a little consideration. We have given the Bill fair consideration, and I leave it at that.
Secondly, in spite of the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) introduced the earlier Bill and did a great deal of work in doing so, and made the situation clear and at that time rescued an important industry and saved the life of "Old Mother Riley" for posterity, and so on, we rather detected behind the Bill the urbane and charming, but, in this connection, perhaps, slightly sinister, figure of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien).
It is part of the tradition of this House that those Members who have great experience of trade union affairs and thus have knowledge of the industry should

lay that great knowledge at the disposal of the House. No one will blame my hon. Friend for doing so, though had he been a member of the People's Progressive Party in British Guiana he might have come in for some trouble on that account. But the industry owes him a debt of gratitude for his services in the matter.
I have sometimes wondered how this industry got at the head of the queue and why it was selected for this special, munificent and rather generous assistance which is carried on in the Bill. But anybody who knows my hon. Friend knows that he has the interests of this great industry at heart, that he has an unrivalled knowledge of it, that on every possible occasion in the last eight years he has given the House the benefit of that knowledge and experience, that he has served the interests of the industry well, and that both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton are entitled to the thanks of the community for continuing this service, which preserves a vital and important industry and one which, one still thinks, could be developed even more and ought one day to be able to stand on its own feet, to common benefit.
There is only one other observation I desire to make on the Bill. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that questions of cultural, aesthetic and artistic value could hardly be considered because of the terms upon which the loans were granted under the Bill. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. and learned Gentleman, because I hope he will say that that is not true. If he says that I misunderstood him or that the words which he used offhand did not convey the impression he wished to convey, I shall be very glad, because it seems to me that if we are considering the granting of public money for the purpose of preserving an industry, we should also be considering the way in which that industry serves the community.
While no one wants to impose a snob complex or a snob attitude on what is a matter of widespread public enjoyment and entertainment, there is really no reason why, from time to time, some preference should not be given to those films which serve the national interest


best and to our desire to produce worthwhile films and films of cultural, aesthetic and artistic value. I hope that that will be done.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. Harold Lever: I find myself wholly in agreement with the expressions just uttered by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) concerning the hon. Member for Nottingham, North-West (Mr. O'Brien), concerning my own magnanimity, and the necessity for the scrutiny of matters such as are contained in this Bill. I fear, however, that I cannot follow my hon. Friend either in seeking to relate this Bill to interesting colonial events, or in saying that, in principle, I am in support of the Bill. I must record that I remain profoundly opposed to the whole principle of this Bill. Moreover, as I am bound to acknowledge that the Leader of the House has in this case treated the back benches with very great consideration, it would be churlish of me if I did not respond by making my argument as brief as I can.
It is an astonishing situation that upon the Third Reading of a Bill which purports to govern and deal with £8 million of public money, the House should be in the position that the case for the Bill has never been made out. I want very briefly to enumerate to the House the questions which I raised tirelessly on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, and to raise them again because they are, I believe, relevant to the Third Reading. In the first place, the House ought to be aware that this Bill is renewing the original Bill of 1948 which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), whereby he set up the Film Finance Corporation in order to cover an emergency crisis.
That Bill provided £5 million of public money with which to support the film industry for five years. We were then told that it was a regrettable necessity, that it was strictly temporary in nature, that the money was going to come back because the scheme was self-liquidating, and that, at the end of that time, the film industry was to stand on its own feet, because, in the meantime, the 1948 Act was going to provide a cover under which

the Government would take the necessary action to make the industry self-supporting.
To me it is an astonishing and regrettable thing that the Government should have introduced this Bill without tendering any explanation at all to the House for coming here with a completely reversed policy. The Government have not told us why they have abandoned the original idea that the scheme was to be temporary pending Government policy with regard to the industry.
There has been no Government policy, and we are now told that the scheme is not to be temporary, but is to be extended for three years. The only Government explanation which I have heard during my attendance of all the hearings is this. They say that the £5 million—increased later by stages to £8 million—has become part of the permanent capital of the film industry. They have not ventured to tell the House why that state of affairs has been brought about, in spite of the declared purpose of the House in 1948 that the money so provided was to be nothing of the kind.
We were led to suppose that this money which was voted by the House as temporary finance became permanent capital by some process not within the Government's cognisance or subject to their action. It is rather as if the fact that we now find ourselves in 1953 voting temporary assistance for the film industry into permanent assistance is due to the same reason why we are having a mild autumn this year. It is a matter which does not fall within the competence of the Government to affect.
We have not been told—and we ought to be before this Bill gets its Third Reading—what are the purposes for making the £5 million originally voted as temporary into permanent capital for the film industry. Why has no policy been provided under cover of the original Act? Why is there no explanation of the non-attainment of the original and very laudable and necessary purposes for which the 1948 Act was brought in?
How can the House hope to give another three years' life to the Film Corporation until the Government tell us how much that Corporation has cost us for five years? I would not repeat this ques-


tion on Third Reading, but for the fact that I find it an extreme affront to the House that we should be asked to vote assistance for another three years when, at the same time, the Minister refuses to tell us how much it has cost so far.
Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to do his duty and to tell the House how much the Corporation has cost so far. He has not yet given any answer to that question, which is truly astonishing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton has sought to give an answer. He says that it has cost the country nothing; that, in fact, we have made a profit on it because of the Entertainments Duty we have been able to collect owing to the activities of the Corporation.
That is the kind of argument which makes me more uneasy than does the Government's silence. It amounts to saying, when I ask how much has been taken from the public purse with which to finance the film industry, that nothing has been taken from the public purse because, by spending this money, we have been able to take more money from the public by taxing them as they enter the cinema. It is truly remarkable.
My right hon. Friend is not unaware that the Government have unlimited opportunities of taking money from our pockets without the necessity of a Film Finance Corporation to enable them to do so. That argument will not do. I press the Minister, even at this late stage, to repair the wrong he is doing by telling us what is the financial cost so far of the Film Finance Corporation. He is not entitled to have this assistance extended until he tells us what it has cost so far.
The Minister has only answered, "Look at the Corporation's accounts." That is really a most unsatisfactory answer. All we have are out-of-date accounts which the Minister dare not maintain are accurate. Does he really mean that the House should regard the figures in the books of the Corporation as representing the average cost? For example, the British Lion debt is there recorded as worth £2 million. Does the Minister think that is the worth of it? If we are not to treat the books of the Corporation as being representative of the reality of the cost of the Corporation, then we find the astonishing situation that

the Minister has told us nothing at all about the cost.
We are entitled to know what the Corporation has achieved. It is all very tedious, and we are all anxious to get on to other business, but we are entitled to know these things. What has the Corporation achieved? I do not find any answer to that in the interesting and attractive propositions about artistic creations which were made on Second Reading and during the Committee stage.
After all, we are not handing out Parliamentary Oscars. We are asking the Minister to account for £8 million of public money. We do not want an interesting selection of what films are trash and what are good. We are not deciding the film of the year. We want to know what the Film Finance Corporation has done for the film industry.
As far as I can make out, the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary is that, as long as the Corporation has kept British Lion and other film companies solvent, that is all that is necessary. Of course, the British Lion can echo the words of the famous old lady who triumphantly announced that she had borrowed enough money with which to pay all her debts. The film industry has been placed in this happy form of solvency by the activities of the Corporation.
I want to know not only what it has cost so far but something about what it has done so far. It is astonishing that not only does the Minister conceal from us how much it has cost but he does not tell us what he thinks it will cost. No estimate has been offered to the House. We are all in favour of helping the industry, but surely the House must realise that the mere declaration of desirable objectives is no excuse for us failing to give a critical examination to the methods whereby it is sought to achieve those objectives. We are entitled to know from the Minister who asks for a three year period how much that extension will cost. We want some estimate. Will it cost 3d., £3 million or nothing?
What does he think of the interest on the £6 million of public money which has been lent so far and which could have earned perhaps some £300,000? We want to know what this will cost in future. What is the purpose of the three year extension? I ask the Minister again, as


I asked him in Committee, what is the intention of the Government about this three year period. Is it to be the final period? Earlier the Minister provided me with the most astonishing reply. He said, first, that the Government could not bind future Parliaments. That interesting statement on constitutional law must have been received by the House with something less than surprise.
He also told me that the Government thought it right now to have a three year extension. I might have deduced as much from having read the Bill. I assume that the Government are not in the habit deliberately of damaging British industry, though many times one is tempted to hold a contrary belief. The Minister told us that he wanted a three-year period because he thought it right. That sort of expression may be appropriate in the nursery but it is not good enough for a Minister in the House of Commons. His declaration about the Tightness of what he is doing was something less than impressive.
I want to know what the three-year period is for and what the intentions of the Government are. I cannot forbear to mention that if, when we brought in the Coal Board and nationalised the coal industry, we had been asked to say what our permanent policy was, and we had said that we could not bind future Governments but we thought it right to have a Coal Board for five years, we should have been faced with the most grave criticism. But that is what the Minister says. He says, "I think it is now right to have the Corporation for three years." Why he thinks it right remains for ever locked in his breast. We do not know the answer.
At the end of the three years, is the industry to be thrown to the wolves? We do not know. At the end of three years, is it the intention of the Government that the industry shall have a fresh subvention? We do not know. Do the Government expect to have any money left at the end of this time? We do not know. Will the House be asked to provide any more money? The House already knows that we shall be kept in ignorance—perhaps in the category of blissful ignorance, because if we knew the real truth we might not be ready to accept the Bill.
Nobody can accuse me of having dealt with anything but fundamental issues. I propose now to discuss another fundamental matter. We are entitled to know a little about the future policy of the Corporation, something of its policy in the past and something about its powers. Those hon. Members who attended earlier debates will know that I had to press and press and ask and ask again before the Minister would tell me whether it was lawful for the Corporation to lend money otherwise than in the honest expectation of getting it back.
In the end, in an unguarded moment late in the Committee stage, the tired Minister, quite contrary to the policy so far followed, managed to vouchsafe a vital piece of information which the House on elementary grounds was always entitled to know. As I understood him, he told us that it was not lawful for the Corporation to lend money otherwise than in the honest expectation of getting it back. I then asked him whether he was satisfied that the Corporation had been acting lawfully within that definition during the past five years when it had been handling this £6 million of public money.
That was not an unreasonable question, but the Minister was not unguarded enough to give me that elementary piece of information. I ask him now to tell me whether he is satisfied that the Corporation has always obeyed the rule that it ought not to lend money otherwise than in the honest expectation of getting it back. I do not want him to give me general observations as he did on Second Reading when he said that if the Government thought the Corporation were doing anything unlawful they would stop it. We always felt that the Minister might be inclined to hold such a view.
Now that the Minister has committed himself to the view that the Corporation has no lawful right to lend public money otherwise that in the honest expectation of getting it back, I want to know whether he is satisfied that on no occasion in the past five years, has public money been lent by the Corporation otherwise than in that belief. My next question is about the powers of the Corporation and its lawful use of them. The House has not been told what will be future policy for the three years we are asked to authorise the Corporation to continue. We have already reconciled ourselves that the


fact that either the Government have no policy or, if they have, they will not tell us about it.
But, at least, we ought to be told about the policy of the Corporation before we authorise its existence for another three years. Will the Minister tell us, even at this late hour, what the policy will be? He made an astonishing statement when he said that he did not intend to interfere with the policy of the Corporation and that he would leave the policy to it. I am sure that one of the able civil servants of his Department has already drawn his attention to the fact that he is under a statutory obligation to interfere and that the Corporation has to receive directives from him from time to time as to the classes of lending it must undertake.
This must have come as a shock to the Minister who thought that all he had to do was to exchange a few votes of confidence with the persons connected with the industry and that nobody would interfere any further. He has not only power to control the Corporation; he is under a statutory obligation to do so. The Corporation cannot work without his directives. Instead of wasting time on Second Reading under the procedure whereby the recipients of State bounty gracefully pay compliments to the gentlemen who are placed in charge of this distribution, and those who speak on be-behalf of the gentlemen in charge of distribution pay equally graceful compliments as to the sober, respectable and artistic nature of the beneficiaries—instead of all that we might have been told a little about the policy of the Corporation. Now that the Minister—even in the middle of the proceedings—has been acquainted with his statutory responsibilities, perhaps he will confide in us what he intends to do about them.

Mr. Hale: I do not think that at any stage anyone has referred to the artistic proclivities of the recipients of bounty. I made the simple point that if one is to subsidise the selling of soap one might as well see that it is good soap, and if one is to subsidise films there is something to be said for the films being good.

Mr. Lever: As usual, I find that I am in wholehearted agreement with the general declaration of my hon. Friend on matters of an artistic and cultural nature.

But that does not prevent me from thinking that these expressions, interesting and encouraging though they may be, fall short of what is desirable when the House is discussing the financial machinery whereby it is sought to support the film industry.
The next matter which concerns me is the semi-permanent pauperisation of the industry by the Government. This was not done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. My right hon. Friend did not pauperise this industry. The responsibility will be upon the Government, from now on, if we pass the Bill which says that we intend to keep the industry in a semi-permanent state of dependence upon the Corporation. If we pass the Bill I cannot see how any young man can go into the industry honestly expecting to pay his way. In effect he is told by the Government that, except in a minority of cases, he cannot earn his living in the industry, and that the most he can hope to do is to borrow money from the Corporation. The Government say, "If you are lucky you pay it back, and if you are unlucky you come to a deal with the Corporation." I am not at all an opponent of a mixed economy, but this is a mixed up economy. We have people invited to come into the industry on a basis of pauperisation.
No active, lively, honest young man would want to come into the industry on those terms. This becomes a new kind of free enterprise, where people can borrow State money, paying it back if they are lucky and in the meantime living on an expense account and perhaps an entertainments allowance. That is a kind of free enterprise which I should have thought all hon. Members would deplore. That is not an incentive for intelligent, active people to come into the industry. That is a neglect of duty on the part of the Government which will do the gravest damage to the industry.
The industry shows no sign of standing on its own feet. It is all very well to make pious expressions of hope that in a few years' time it will stand on its own feet. This way of pauperising the industry will never get it on to its feet. If we want to do that, the Government must formulate the policy promised to Parliament five years ago instead of coming here and, as I said in Committee, buying


time over and over again without advancing any policy or giving any satisfactory reasons for their attitude.
I am sorry that it is necessary for me once again to protest. I protest, on the one hand, as a friend of the film industry in this country, that the Bill is digging a pit into which the industry will fall, because if this money has gone at the end of three years it is very doubtful whether the House will trust the Minister of any political complexion with more money with which to support the industry. The industry will then be allowed to collapse precisely because we in the House have not insisted that we should formulate a policy which will create decent living conditions for it.
The best way in which the House can test the position is to ask this question: What should we say if the Government came with such a proposition as this in connection with any other industry in the country? Supposing they made such a proposition about the motor industry and said, "We are forming a Motor Finance Corporation. They expect to lose money. We make provision for that because if they lose money we will write it off. We have no policy; we know the industry cannot pay; and we will not develop any policy." If that had been suggested in respect of any other industry in the country the Minister bringing forward such a Bill would have been howled down in the House, but by an odd mixture of circumstances the film industry seems to be able to becloud the quality of judgment normally present in most of my hon. Friends on the financial matters. It seems that we all go into a sort of cloud cuckoo land and do not get down to the problem of providing concrete safeguards for public money and tangible incentives to the industry to put itself on its feet.
I go on record as saying that unless the Government are forced to change their present idle attitude towards the film industry, then this Bill is a pit into which the film-producing industry in this country will sink. It will be the end of British film production industry if the Government do not awaken to their sense of duty.
All the Bill does is to give the Government permission to slumber for another three years unless somebody is alive and energetic enough to disturb those slumbers. I maintain both those qualities in

this debate, but I need make no apology for having done so on this Rip Van Winkle's charter for the Board of Trade to go on slumbering, doing nothing and waiting until a great and important industry is ruined and a great deal of public money is sunk. In the process of doing so they are revealing scandal and unsatisfactory conditions. The Government disclosed nothing of the realities behind the situation. They have never troubled to estimate the past or future cost and the House has been treated in a very unsatisfactory way in the matter.
I venture to protest against the Bill. It can bring no good to the film industry unless it is followed by pressure in the House of the strongest character to awaken the Board of Trade from its unjustifiable slumber on the needs of the film industry.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Hollis: I shall not keep the House for more than two minutes, but I would not think it right to let this Bill pass without repeating in three or four sentences my fundamental protest that, with all the will in the world, I cannot see that the policy either of the late Government or of this Government towards the film industry adds up to sense. There are two propositions, it seems to me, quite easily defended. Either we say the cinema is a bad thing and a fit subject for taxation, or we say it is a good thing and a fit subject for subvention. There is a lot to be said for either of those propositions, but I do not see how they can both be defended at the same time.
It has been the policy of both the last Government and of this Government first to tax the industry out of existence and then to bring it back again into existence by subvention. I must repeat my protest that I cannot see any sense in that. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) says the loans cost us nothing because we get them back in Entertainments Duty. Would it not save a lot of bookkeeping to wash out both the loans and the Entertainments Duty?

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I think it would be right at this late stage of the Bill's history to express the satisfaction of at any rate the majority of my hon. Friends, and certainly the vast majority


of hon. Members on both sides who know anything about the subject, on the fact that at last the Bill looks as though it will get somewhere near harbour, although it has had a rather more surprising voyage than any of us originally contemplated.
In reply to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), of course prima facie the view which he has expressed is a reasonable one, but if he would study any of the past debates which we have had on the film industry over the last few years, or even if he would study what was said on Second Reading of this Bill, he would understand that to remit £10 million of Entertainment Duty, whether by the previous Government or this Government, would not lead to an equally automatic recovery of £10 million by the British film-producing industry. Indeed, at the time that suggestion was reported on by expert Committees of inquiry it was estimated that only £1 million would go back to the film-producing industry, so that to put the industry in a reasonable and satisfactory financial position would mean a very big loss to the Exchequer which I do not think the present Chancellor would be prepared to contemplate.
I think I should express our satisfaction that the Bill looks like reaching the Statute Book before long so that it will be possible to continue the work done by the Film Finance Corporation from the time it was established by the Labour Government, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take account of some of the points which have been raised during the debate from this side of the House. I take the view, as I think do most hon. Members, that the Film Finance Corporation has done a first-class job and has produced a large number of films which would not have been produced. It saved the film industry from complete collapse. That is something which has been pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) on a number of occasions. It certainly strengthened our position in negotiations with the American film industry, because if we had not saved the industry from collapse we should either have had to go without films in this country or been thoroughly at the mercy of the Americans in any negotiations they had with us on film questions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham and my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) have raised a number of points, and I hope the Government will bear them in mind in their administration of this Bill. I hope the Government will not go away, forget this matter for the next three years and then come back. When we were operating the original Bill, never a week went past when we were not very closely watching how it was being administered by the Corporation which had been established. I hope that the same can be said of the President and his colleagues.
I think everyone in all parts of the House would wish to pay some tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham, even if we disagree with most of his conclusions. During the proceedings on the Bill I heard him on many occasions put a whole series of questions to the Parliamentary Secretary. I hope even at this late stage he may get an answer to one or two of them, but I would not encourage my hon. Friend to be optimistic about that; it is getting a little late to expect the Parliamentary Secretary to start answering questions.
Whatever view we may take of the points raised by my hon. Friend, his performance on the Second Reading, as the Leader of the House said on another occasion, was undoubtedly a remarkable Parliamentary achievement to which all should desire to pay tribute. I have heard my hon. Friend make his points on Second Reading, on the Committee stage and now on Third Reading, and it can quite fairly be said that he has fulfilled the objective which he so clearly described on Second Reading. He said that while he might at times be tedious, he would not be repetitive while he was being tedious, and while he might at times be repetitive, he would not be tedious while he was being repetitive. Those of us who have sat through the long weary hours during which he has been putting his points can say that he has fully succeeded and has never been repetitive and tedious at the same time, no matter how tedious or repetitive he might have been at various stages during the proceedings on the Bill.
I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman will reply to the points


made by my hon. Friends, but I hope he will take full note of them and pay due attention to them, particularly those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East, who has a wide knowledge of the industry and has disclosed his interest in the subject.
I wish to refer to a matter which has been raised on a number of occasions. I have received a letter from the Rank Organisation pointing out that the chairman of the Organisation made some comment in a speech on the point made in the last Report of the National Film Finance Corporation about the attitude of the Rank Organisation to films produced by Group III, pointing out that the Organisation had shown five of the eight produced. It would be wrong for us to quote the last Report of the Corporation in respect of the Rank Organisation without also quoting what the Rank Organisation says about the Report. This has nothing to do with the question of the booking arrangements of the Rank Organisation through its two circuits, which I raised with the hon. and learned Gentleman on a number of occasions and about which I gather he is still making inquiries.
A large number of workers in the industry who have been saved from unemployment by the Corporation will feel some satisfaction that its work will continue. We all hope that in administering the Act the Government will pay very close attention to the points which have been raised to ensure that the Act is used not to "feather-bed" the industry—that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham is anxious about—but as a background to the most strenuous efforts to be made by the industry to place itself on a sound financial basis.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: For hours I have listened to the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever) expressing his views about the industry. As a result of his remarks a great deal of misunderstanding must have arisen in the minds of many people and a good deal of unfairness has been done to the industry. The statements made by the hon. Member this afternoon will not stand the slightest examination if they are compared with the facts.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the "pauperisation of the industry." Does

he not know that last year Ealing Studios made a profit on its activities, that the Rank Organisation is also making a good profit and that many other producers are making profits? It is disgraceful that the hon. Member does not take the trouble to find out anything about the industry and yet makes absurd allegations against the firms involved. These people are doing a lot to help themselves and are achieving some satisfactory results.

Mr. Hale: When I last looked at the figures of the Rank Organisation—I admit that it was 12 or 18 months ago—there was a controlling concern which had two shares, one of which was held by Mr. Rank and the other by Mrs. Rank. There was a production company, a completely separate company, running Odeon Cinemas, for which money was obtained from the community. Production losses by the Rank concern were amalgamated with Odeon profits, to the detriment of the shareholders in the public company. I do not know what has happened since. The hon. Gentleman is really unwise to challenge us on individual companies or to suggest that there are not a very great many things in the industry which require a little examination.

Mr. Shepherd: I did not suggest that nothing in the industry required looking at. I shall shortly suggest some matters which need examination.

Mr. Lever: I made no allegations against the British film-producing industry. I said that the Government are pauperising the industry and that, on the basis of the Report before us, two-thirds of the industry is not able to exist without borrowing on non-commercial terms from the Corporation.

Mr. Shepherd: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads his own speech tomorrow. He ought also to try to understand the nature of the industry and the extent to which it is using public money. It is unfair to make statements in the House about the industry which are not justified. Over the last four or five years the average cost of a film has been reduced from £270,000 to £120,000. It is unfair and unreasonable to say that everybody is in the red when a number of firms are making commendable efforts and are doing satisfactorily in the financial circumstances.
That does not for a moment alter the fact that there are serious difficulties in the industry, even though Mr. Rank may be making a profit now. I should like to tell the hon. Member for Oldham, West that the Rank Organisation restarted production only this year, and I was referring to current production and not to past production. The House is right to stress that the Government should not continue providing money indefinitely, and I hope that this will be the last time that we shall come to the House and ask for funds. I see no reason why a soundly organised company, with the benefit of the Eady Levy, cannot produce films at a profit. There will probably have to be some special form of finance for films indefinitely, but I do not think that in the years to come support of this nature will be required.
I have not heard the manner in which the £3 million debt of British Lion is to be dealt with, and I am a little unhappy about that. The hon. Member for Cheetham talked about the money spent on the film industry by the Corporation. But it has not spent half the sum mentioned. The £3 million went before the Corporation had a chance to put its hands on any money at all. I should like to elicit from the Parliamentary Secretary some idea of what is to happen to British Lion's £3 million. I should like an inquiry into the whole of the workings of the British Lion Film Corporation; if possible, I should like a committee of capable persons to decide what the structure ought to be.
I do not want to mention names, but there are difficulties in that context. I was told the other day that I was wrong in saying that Sir Alexander Korda was the executive producer. Nevertheless, it is true that Sir Alexander controls production in the sense that he engages artists and approves scripts. On the other hand, I feel quite satisfied that there is not the control of production in British Lion which there ought to be. I am advised, for instance, that no one in the executive class sees the shots as the films are made, and I am told that, so far as the last film is concerned—that about Gilbert and Sullivan—the re-takes that were ordered when the film was completed cost something like £50,000.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I think the hon. Member is now going beyond the terms of this Bill.

Mr. Shepherd: Here, it appears to me, there is a serious loss of public money. It is not the company's money, but the taxpayers' money, and I am pleading that, before any settlement is made of the issue with British Lion, there ought to be a full inquiry into the work and organisation of the company in order to see whether something can be done to safeguard the public interest. I am satisfied that what is happening in that Corporation today does not protect the public purse, and, therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will give some indication that his Department will go very thoroughly into the question of organisation in order to make certain that the losses of British Lion will no longer continue.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: My principal reason for rising is to try to remove some of the impressions which seem to have run throughout the discussions on this Bill, on Second Reading, in Committee and again today. One is the impression that there are only two or three hon. Members who are in opposition to this Bill, and nobody else. It is not true. Quite a number of hon. Members, including myself, would desire to associate themselves with most of the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever). I would also say, in connection with the criticisms made by my hon. Friends the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), that there is a great deal of justification for the request for information which they made on an earlier stage and which has had to be repeated today. We are still pressing at the present moment to get answers to some of the questions which have been asked at every stage of the proceedings.
An attempt has been made to describe this industry as healthy financially, and it has been suggested that, even if British Lion are not making money, the rest of the people seem to be doing very well. It seems to me not at all desirable that the Government should be saddled only with those ventures that are not profitable, while those that are profitable


should be left in the hands of private enterprise business people. It has also been suggested that the industry itself was quite healthy, and one hon. Member mentioned the fact, which was suggested as a justification for the payments that are being made to the film industry, that the industry itself made a great contribution to taxation by way of Entertainments Duty. That is no justification for the industry being given a rebate. There have been complaints about other forms of taxation, and the suggestion made that there should be some sort of rebate, but we have to remember that this particular industry, like every other, is not taxed on account of that industry alone, but on behalf of the general public purse. We must look at this matter from that point of view.
I want to add to what I said last week, and, in addition to the other questions which I put to him, ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether an attempt is being made to do more than has been done before in the direction of recovering the losses of this Corporation, so that they are not allowed to disappear altogether without any attempt at recovery. I understand that some of the productions are still saleable abroad, but that, if we are not very careful we may lose that revenue—I believe we do lose it now—from films which can still be sold abroad. I think we are entitled to a better answer than we have had already and to more information on this subject, even at this late stage. I am only too ready to associate myself with those hon. Members who have been demanding replies to their questions and more information about this matter.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I do not claim to be an expert on the film industry, but, for a considerable number of years I was a governor of the British Film Institute, whose main function it was to encourage appreciation of the art of the film, and it seemed to me that this body has played a splendid part in the film history of the world.
I was amazed at the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) accusing some of my hon. Friends of misunderstanding, ill-informed criticism and absurd allegations. That sort of thing carries no weight, because, if this Corporation is to

be successful, it can only be successful as a result of what it is able to produce in the direction of what the consuming public want to see, and that activity is not helped by the very silly—one might even describe it as ignorant—statement by the hon. Member for Cheadle with regard to Scottish cinemas. It is obvious what the Scottish cinemas have to contend with, and they are doing their best to help to make this industry successful. The rather stupid and ignorant criticism of the hon. Member for Cheadle will not be helpful in any way to the film industry.

5.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Henry Strauss): I think it will be convenient if I answer briefly some of the points that have been made. May I say at once to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) that he did misunderstand me if he thought I said that the National Film Finance Corporation would never consider the merits of a film or its value from the point of view of culture and so forth. I think the passage in a previous speech which he had in mind was one in which I quoted the terms of the principal Act, in Section 1 (1, b) of which are stated what I may call the commercial considerations the Corporation have to have in mind; but the hon. Gentleman may recall that the Corporation gave quite exceptional help, to give only one example, to the Everest film.
May I now turn to the hon. Member for Cheetham (Mr. H. Lever)? Many compliments have been paid to the hon. Gentleman on his achievement in his original speech on Second Reading, but I must say that I am not now so much impressed as I was then, for this very simple reason. I do not think the hon. Gentleman finds the least difficulty in speaking for three hours. What would impress me would be if he managed to compress his arguments into the space of three minutes. Then he really might make a much greater impression, at least on my mind.
I am sorry that both he, and by implication his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), repeated the completely untrue, as I think, accusation that I did not answer questions. I would say, however, of the hon. Member for


Oldham, West that, whatever our differences may be on various matters politically, I do not think he has ever consciously misrepresented me, and I am quite sure he never would. But I did rather resent the positive statement of the hon. Member for Cheetham that I had not answered questions, which statement has been repeated again today, considering that, when the Bill was before the House on the last occasion and the same accusation was made I called attention to the passage in my speech on Second Reading which proved the accusation to be completely false.
Let me now deal briefly with a few of the points that were raised. The Bill is not strictly renewing the principal Act but extending for another three years the ability of the Corporation to lend. The hon. Member for Cheetham says that the Bill is quite contrary to the promise, or the prophecy, of the right hon. Member for Huyton at the time he introduced the principal Bill. That is true, and was stated on both sides of the House with equal frankness on Second Reading. The period for which the principal Act was required was a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman was over-optimistic but there have been Acts of Parliament since. There was another Act in 1950 under the late Government, and there was an Act in 1952 under the present Government.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) is wrong in thinking that the Bill extends in any way the amount of money at risk. The hon. Member for Cheetham said that I had not given an estimate of what the National Film Finance Corporation had lost up to date, but I say again that I cannot make a better estimate than is contained in paragraph 46 of the last annual Report. Almost the whole of the loss there mentioned occurred in the first two years of the Corporation's life.
When we turn to what is likely in the future, let me take separately the two Clauses of the Bill. Under Clause 1, there will not necessarily be any further loss, and I hope there will not be. There is no reason why we should pessimistically expect it although I cannot guarantee that there will not be, but, judging by experience, there is no reason to expect loss as a matter of course.
On the question of possible loss under Clause 2, I would explain, as is explained in paragraph 5 of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, that it is impossible to give an estimate.
The hon. Member also said that I appeared to be ignorant of Section 2 (3) of the original Act, which says:
The Corporation shall not, except in such classes of case as the Board of Trade may approve, make a loan.
I was, of course, aware at all times of that provision. But the right hon. Gentleman who was President of the Board of Trade in the previous Administration decided that these loans might be made in all classes of case and he did not make any distinction. We thought it to be a wise decision and that policy is being continued.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) was answered, I thought, in a way with which I substantially agreed, by the right hon. Member for Huyton. I quite see the prima facie force of the point which he made, but it is a fact that relief of taxation of the exhibitor does not have that direct relation with the support of the producer which he supposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) spoke of an inquiry into the management of the British Lion Corporation. I have explained before that the debt of the British Lion Corporation to the National Film Finance Corporation is the most important of the matters that will fall to be considered under Clause 2.
When proposals are made by the National Film Finance Corporation for the composition of that indebtedness, all material matters will be taken into consideration, and every inquiry that is necessary will be made. I have already given assurance to the House—and indeed it is obvious—that this matter will be considered and agreed by both the Board of Trade and the Treasury. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) intervened in what I think was a private quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle and I need not make any addition to that little controversy.
The hon. Member for Kirkdale may not have realised, because he repeated erroneous statements that have been made once or twice before, that the National Film Finance Corporation frequently make it a condition of their loan


that they shall share in any profits made by a film which they are helping. The hon. Member also asked me whether, before any money is written off, all proper attempts will be made to recover as much as possible. Undoubtedly that will be done.

Mr. Keenan: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had said that on the Committee stage the Bill would probably have had a much easier passage than it got.

Mr. Strauss: I think the hon. Gentleman has a wholly erroneous view of the character of the hon. Member for Cheetham.

Mr. H. Lever: For the first time I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Strauss: Then that makes us unanimous. I believe that the Bill will perform a useful purpose which is strongly supported by the large majority of hon. Members. I am not going into the merits of the period for which the powers are being extended, because that was debated on the Committee stage, and the House came to a decision.

Mr. Lever: The Government have never given any reason for it yet.

Mr. Strauss: The hon. Gentleman must realise that he is not a monopolist and that other people are entitled to speak in this House. The Corporation performs a useful function, and it is right that its ability to lend capital to a section of the British film-producing industry should continue. Clause 2 will enable schemes of composition to be entered into by the Corporation which, if it were not a statutory corporation, it would always have had power to do. Both those provisions are wise for the reasons that have already been given, and I hope that the House will now give the Bill a Third Reading.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES (IMPORT DUTIES INCREASE)

5.19 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): I beg to move,
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1736), dated 27th November 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.
This is the first of two Orders which have the effect of raising the duties on certain classes of horticultural produce, and I should perhaps make it plain that, with orders of this nature, the Board of Trade is the responsible Ministry. Obviously, one could speak at very great length on Orders of this character, but I think it would be better if I were to open briefly to the House, and then to speak later in the debate and take up any points which hon. Members on either side of the House might wish to raise. I would also commend to hon. Members the White Paper on this subject, not that it is the subject of the debate—the Order is the subject—but I think the White Paper is quite a good document for reference purposes.
These Orders, were, of course, made possible by the waiver which we obtained at the session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. I need not go into that in detail now. I informed the House about it when I came back from Geneva, and explained the procedures which we had to go through, and which we have gone through.

Mr. Percy Daines: I am not quite sure that I understand the right hon. Gentleman. Does he propose to take the debate himself, and at no stage is the Minister of Agriculture to give the House the advantage of his views?

Mr. Thorneycroft: These matters are essentially the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and I think it is important to bear that in mind, if I may say so. This is not a case in which either the consumers or the producers can have an exclusive interest. It is a matter which falls exclusively under my responsibility, and I think it is right that I should reply in debate to any points raised.

Mr. George Brown: We have nobody from the Ministry of Agriculture here and it is quite impossible to discuss


either of these Orders as though it had no bearing upon the conditions of the horticultural industry and the way in which they can be dealt. I think it is treating the House with scant courtesy if the Minister of Agriculture does not come, and even then it is cutting it a bit fine if we do not get answers to some of the criticisms we may make.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I can assure the House that there is no discourtesy intended. I think that the right hon. Gentleman is being a little premature. It does take a little time to put these points forward.

Mr. Brown: Can we have a statement?

Mr. Thorneycroft: As I was saying, both Orders are made possible by the waiver which we obtained at the Eighth Session of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The procedures which I described to the House when I came back have, in fact, worked, and I think I can say have worked satisfactorily. That is to say, we have, where necessary, put all the items referred to here through those procedures; and on one item only, plums, there is a matter which is still being discussed between us and the United States of America, and I do not think that need concern us in this debate. For the rest, we are free to move on in the sense described in these Orders.
May I say a word or two on what we are doing? We are not introducing some novel or special form of protection for the horticultural industry. We are, in fact, getting rid of every physical restriction, except a few agricultural plant-health restrictions, which do not take away from the general principle. We are getting rid of every physical restriction on the import of the horticultural produce covered by these Orders; that is to say, as the tariffs go up the physical quotas are removed. The system of physical quotas on these items was, I think, clumsy and destructive of trade. It was unsatisfactory from the point of view of both the producer and the consumer. Indeed, I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have had some experience of these quotas know with what sudden and arbitrary effect they are inclined to operate and will be very glad to see the back of them.
Hon. Members, will, I know, be concerned with the interests of the consumers and with the effect upon the cost of living. It is not possible, of course, to estimate the effect of these changes in tariff levels upon the cost of living or on prices, though I must say that I think the effect would be pretty marginal. Here it is important to remember that, if one is discussing the effect of an increased tariff on prices, the quota controls also have an effect on prices. To say to another country, "You cannot send in any goods at all," can have just as much effect on prices at home as can the introduction of a tariff.
We are replacing that rather crude system by import tariffs decided after very full inquiry. Both these Orders refer mostly to fresh fruit and vegetables. They are the first major tariff Orders which have been introduced since the war, and I think that it is right that they should be looked at carefully by the House from the consumers' point of view, because all in this House have a responsibility to watch that. They must be looked at also from the point of view of exports, because if we pursue a high tariff policy over here, we cannot expect other countries overseas to follow a low tariff policy. Last, but not least, they should be considered from the point of view of the producers, because it is right, after proper inquiry, that proper tariffs should be introduced where we are free to do so.
I am not going into the details of the individual items at the moment, but I suppose that the case for horticultural protection, in general, is that it is a hazardous industry. It is hazardous because it is influenced, not simply by the ordinary difficulties of supply and demand, but by other difficulties, such as the weather, to a degree far greater than affects most industries. The weather may operate in two ways; it may operate upon the demand for a thing as well as upon the production of a particular form of commodity.
The other broad principle upon which we should advance in this matter is that, in any event, these duties are out of date, and I do not think that anyone looking at them could come to any other conclusion. Here I am speaking in generalities, but they are mostly specific duties—so much a hundredweight or pound—but everyone knows that world prices have risen since before the war. They have,


in fact, risen several times and what might, therefore, have been a reasonable tariff before the war has been very much reduced in its incidence since the war. In those circumstances there is clearly a very strong prima facie case for bringing it up to somewhere near the pre-war level.
The National Farmers' Unions made their application in 1950—and may I just say this about the National Farmers' Unions in this connection? As the House knows, we have been placed in very great difficulties with regard to this tariff by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, in getting a waiver and so on, and I must say that the National Farmers' Unions showed great statesmanship in their attitude, and I should like to put that on record.
We received their application. We had advertisements published, and we had representations from importers, distributors and consumers, although the consumers, the housewives, are not very closely organised. I think it is our responsibility, therefore—certainly it is that of the Board of Trade—to watch over their interests in these matters. As a result of this application, there are 20 cases in which increases were approved, and of those 20 cases 19 are included in these Orders.
I may mention that it was not a blind endorsement of the application. Almost an equal number of cases were in fact not accepted, though those are not under discussion here. We are dealing with the recommendations concerned in the Orders. There were a few cases where, on examination, it appeared that no specific duty was really justified any more, and in those cases we adopted the proper procedure, namely, to revert to the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty which, as hon. Members know, is the basic duty of our tariff system.

Mr. Daines: The Minister referred a moment ago to representations by organisations, and he mentioned specifically the consumers. Can he tell the House who the consumers' organisations were, and what their attitude was?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Yes, I can. I will give the House all the information I can. I said that I think it is very difficult for any organisation to represent consumers. I think I would carry the hon. Gentleman

with me there. We had representations, for example, from the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Union on this matter. We had representations from the Cheap Food League and from the Housewives' League. I do not want to overstate the amount of opinion which can be collected from organisations on the consumers' side. That is a matter which the House has to take into account when looking at the general picture.

Mr. Daines: What did they say?

Mr. Thorneycroft: They said different things on different items. That is rather a large field to cover in answer to a question.

Mr. A. J. Champion: Were the housewives in favour?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Some were and some were not. The principles upon which we worked were as follows. First of all, we had to try to get a fair return to the producer without causing hardship to the consumer. We had to strike a balance in the matter. Secondly, we had to take the existing tariff as the starting point, to look at the tariff as it was before these Orders were made and to see what case could be made for increasing it, or leaving it as it was, or abandoning it altogether.
Thirdly, we had to keep in mind what is often the crucial point in these questions—namely, the period during which an increased tariff should be introduced; and generally, of course, the object should be to introduce the tariff during the period when the main crop of the home producer is available to housewives in this country, so as to see that during that period a reasonable protection is given to the producer, and the consumer is not injured by the introduction of a tariff at a time when, on an average, the produce is not there from the home producer.
Fourthly, we sought to protect those crops which the United Kingdom producer really could produce in substantial quantities. I do not mean that it is practicable to try to protect and build up a section of horticulture where, in ordinary circumstances, one could not expect the United Kingdom producers to produce in adequate quantities. So we have concentrated on those instances—


and they are all here—where we think the United Kingdom producers can make the main and overwhelming contribution to the market during the main crop season.

Mr. F. Beswick: These are in a sense precedents, and it is, therefore, important to know at the outset on what principles the President of the Board of Trade bases these increases. Under which of the heads that he has just given would he have increased the tariff on lettuces, for example, during the months of January and February, from 5s. to 10s. a cwt.? Could he tell us this as an example of the way in which he applies these principles?

Mr. Thorneycroft: If I state the principles now, perhaps hon. Members who have questions to ask about particular items will put them in the course of the debate, and at the conclusion I will try to answer the points. I should not like now to answer questions from all over the House about lettuces or onions or tomatoes. To tell the truth, I am not quite sure that I should be able to answer them all offhand. If the hon. Gentleman will put any point on specific items to me, I will give him an answer at the conclusion of the debate.
The fifth principle which we had was that, where there was no case for protection, we have made the duty revert to the 10 per cent. ad valorem duty which is the basic principle of the whole of our tariff legislation. Lastly, we have relied, again in the main, upon specific duties. We have done that because in the case of a specific duty the incidence of the duty is high when the prices are low and the incidence is low when the prices are high. The advantages of that principle are, of course, obvious. It tends rather more to keep the imported goods out in a period of glut, when they would be most dangerous. Those are the principles.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I apologise for not intervening earlier, but as the right hon. Gentleman is leaving the general considerations, would he answer the charge which has been made against him? It is said that assurances were given that there would be full discussions about this matter in the manner in which he is discussing it now. The distributors complained that

there have not been these discussions: they complain of sharp practice, in fact.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I should be astonished if they could substantiate such a claim. People may differ, and can legitimately differ, about whether a particular tariff should go up or down, but I have not the slightest doubt that full discussions have taken place. They could hardly have been fuller. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening. We have been meticulously careful to see that all the applications were fully advertised in the first place, that all the organisations representing, in particular, such people as distributors, should be aware of what was proposed and should have an opportunity of making their representation son it. Those representations in turn were transmitted to the applicants themselves. Where necessary, and where the facts were in dispute, as sometimes they could be, joint meetings were held with the applicant and the organisation who were disputing the facts.
It would have been difficult to find any way in which fuller examination of the case could have been made. Indeed, if I may say so, the statements which I have seen—I will extract them from my papers and perhaps refer to them later more fully—from representatives of the retail distributors would hardly bear out the fact that insufficient examination had taken place. On the whole, they seem to have tended to say that they think that this is a fair way of dealing with the matter, that on balance it is really better for the producer and the consumer to have a tariff rather than a quota, and to have favoured the line that has been taken. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me that opportunity of saying exactly what was done and of describing the way in which we proceeded in this matter.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Before my right hon. Friend leaves that point, may I put this question to him? I am keenly interested in the point on which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) has just intervened. It is not a question of hearsay. I have here "The Fruit, Flower and Vegetable Trades Journal" published only four days ago, which says:
Contrary to repeated pledges in Parliament given by the President of the Board of Trade, there has been no opportunity for free


discussion of the proposals before they became law.
It goes on to refer to sharp practice. In order to rebut these charges, which I believe are untrue, would my right hon. Friend, when he replies at the end of the debate, give full particulars of the distributive organisations within the fruit, flower and vegetable trades which were consulted?

Mr. W. F. Deedes: Further to that point, may I refer my right hon. Friend to the OFFICIAL REPORT of 8th December, column 199, where 29 such organisations are listed and where it is made clear that every opportunity was given for those and other organisations to represent their case?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged to my hon Friends. I will not, at this stage, read out the full list. I think I have said enough to assure the House—for the House should be so assured—that I do not think allegations of that kind should be allowed to go unanswered. I think it right that my attention should be drawn to them and that I should have an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Willey: If I may make the point so that the Minister may deal with it, I wonder whether the distinction was between representation and consultation.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The fullest possible opportunity was given for anyone to make his case fully in this matter. But I would certainly produce any list which is required of the organisations consulted.
This is the first tariff application which has been made. I am glad to be able to report that we are in a position to make it. I think we should be satisfied that we got the waiver from Article 1of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade which enabled us to proceed at all in this matter. I am glad to report that the procedures which we arranged there have in fact worked out in practice and we are free to go ahead. I think it a good thing that we can implement our frequently-made statements that tariffs are the right way to protect horticulture and that quotas are not. The right way to introduce tariff protection is to have a full and detailed inquiry in which all sides can be heard, whether they are consumers, producers or distributors.
I consider that an arrangement of this kind is likely to be beneficial both to

those who grow fruit and vegetables and those who eat them, and so I commend it to the House. As I have said, I hope that during the debate hon. Members will raise any particular points which they may have in mind, and I shall be happy to try to give them an answer.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: There are one or two matters which I regret. I well understand the reason the President of the Board of Trade introduced this Order but, as was bound to be the fact, he could neither tell us the strength of the case put by those who asked for the raising of specific Duties nor deal with any specific question of horticultural interest such as the very pertinent and important question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is present in the Chamber, and it is to be regretted that the President proposes to close the debate himself without giving us a chance to hear from a representative of that Ministry, who could indicate to us the strength of the case for horticulture. There is nothing personal about this, because we all like and enjoy the company of the President of the Board of Trade and his contributions to our debates; but clearly, as he himself indicated by implication, he is not in a position himself to answer now certain questions which have already been put to him; and any answer he gives eventually will be put into his hand between now and the end of the debate. With the best will in the world, he will be telling us something which, on his own authority and knowledge, he is not in a strong position to advance to us, and I do not think that is a good way to deal with the matter.
It so happens that I am prepared to support the Orders and I have advised my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same. That makes me even more anxious that the strength of the case for the Orders should be deployed Ministerially, and that the Minister, who must have been responsible for proffering the advice on horticulture upon which the Board of Trade exercised its quasi-judicial function, should be able to answer in this House for the advice he gave. I beg the President to think again about whether this debate may either be wound up by a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture or there may be


some intervention from a representative of that Ministry regarding the question of horticulture, so that people do not have the feeling that their case has not been answered.
I do not think the President has even yet cleared up this question upon which "The Fruit, Flower and Vegetable Trades Journal" expressed such strong views recently, and that, to me, is another matter for regret. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. F. Willey) got on to this point very quickly, and I suspect that here we have two people talking about two different things. The President of the Board of Trade says, I imagine quite properly—and the list he gave in HANSARD the other day bears it out—that a large number of people were given the opportunity to submit their views and to make representations.
What I gather is being said—since in this matter the Board of Trade has to act, as it were, in a quasi-judicial sense since we have got rid of the old Import Duties Advisory Committee—is that there was upon the Board of Trade an obligation to do more than consider cases submitted by interested parties. There should have been an opportunity for consumers to be heard by someone. Their case should have been argued for or against before a decision was made, and there should not have been merely an opportunity for arguing about it after the Orders were brought to this House for confirmation.
I am not prepared at this stage to take sides. I can see that if everyone had to be heard it would be almost impossible for the Board of Trade to carry out its duties. On the other hand, I can appreciate that when one is given an opportunity to submit a written case one ought to know what case has been submitted by the other side, and the opportunity should be given to follow it up. It is playing with words to say that there has been consultation in a real sense because that is not so. We should like to hear something more about that matter before the end of the debate.
I think I am right in saying that this is the first time we have done this sort of thing since the Import Duties Advisory Committee was wound up, and it is very important, therefore, that in the new form of machinery we do not set a precedent

which removes any protection which people enjoyed under the old form, because that would be a very bad thing.
I am prepared to support these Orders. On the other hand, let no one minimise the degree of traditional feeling which exists about the increasing of tariffs, particularly on items of food. It is not a thing to be laughed away. As I have said before in this House, there is no greater harm that anyone can do to the producers than to lead them to think that the interests and views of the vast bulk of our population who have a consuming interest are not to be given the greatest possible weight. Since producers in a country such as ours will in the end get only that amount of protection which the consumer and the taxpayer can be persuaded to give them, it is most important not to jeer when it is pointed out that very strong views indeed are held upon this subject.
In particular, those of us who are concerned about producers must try to carry the others with us. We shall deploy our case as best we can, but we must listen and try to understand the strength of the case advanced by the other side. I am subjected to exactly the same pressures as are many hon. Members on both sides of the House about the effect which a rise in tariffs will have upon the food of the people. I am a Co-operator and obviously the views of that movement cannot be made known without producing some pressure on me.
I am a member of a very large trade union, the bulk of whose membership is not in this producing industry, and, therefore, have a consuming interest, and of course I have the weight of their views on the matter put on me. Like every Member of the House, I have a constituency interest. The bulk of my constituents, like the bulk of the constituents of almost every other Member of the House, mainly have a consuming interest. So I am well aware of the extent to which people feel strongly about this, and if I thought that what we are doing would substantially raise the cost of people's food, or raise the cost of people's food at all without a corresponding advantage being conferred upon them. I should take a lot of persuading that the Orders were right. Quite frankly, however, I am not able to believe that either of those things is true.
I was interested to see in the fruit trade journal a leader that ended with a very interesting and very fair statement that I will quote to the House. This is from the issue of 5th December:
Let us get the whole thing into perspective, however. The new duties affect only a small proportion of our fruit imports. Bananas, apples, pears, citrus fruit, nuts, dates, outdoor grapes, all major commodities, are unaffected.
The article goes on:
Most foreign produce comes outside the home season when the rates and duties remain low. So it is nonsense to suggest that the cost of living will shoot up.
It goes on:
But it is equally specious to claim that the housewife will not have to pay more on occasions. She will. Sometimes higher charges can be justified.
I think that is a fair statement, and it is important that we should recognise, whether our interest is with the traders or predominantly with the consumers, that the thing should be got into perspective, and that any argument that this is a substantial new addition to the cost of people's food is wrong.
Then, of course, we have to go on to find out just what impost it does apply. In the main, I think that the Government have made a case. At any rate, the trade has made its case for the Orders. I think we will all of us agree that if we are to get this industry at all stable and prosperous, some degree of protection by some device or another is bound to operate at some periods of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) will, no doubt, seek later to catch your eye, Sir, and as the president of the largest union of agricultural workers he can put rather more clearly a point I should like to make in passing.
Quite apart from the position of the grower, one has always to keep in mind that, after all, the bulk of this particular section of the agricultural industry are what one calls the workers—the horticultural workers. When I was trying to organise a form of trade union for horticultural workers in the Lea Valley in 1937 or thereabouts, it was an extremely hard and unpleasant business. One felt that one wanted a strong trade union in order to lift the wages above the 30s.—or more, but less than £2—whioh then prevailed. On the other hand, quite frankly, those chaps were not in a

position to afford to run a trade union or to contribute towards it. Now they are getting £6a week. It would be deluding them and everybody else to suggest that we could maintain that kind of wage and the economy which makes it possible in a horticultural industry that did not receive some measure of protection against imports from overseas at particular periods of the year.
I think that that will be generally agreed, and, therefore, I go on to say what I was saying just now, and, following on from that, I feel that the case has been made for these orders, since what is contained in them is, by and large, to do no more than to provide that particular degree of protection to enable the industry to manage in the way in which it is now.
The President of the Board of Trade spoke about the quota system and about its being inflexible and being operated roughly, and so on. I am not all that convinced, quite frankly, that this scheme of tariffs is all that much more flexible than the other was. One still fixes in advance the period at which it applies. The objection to the quota date was that one fixed it as best one could on the best guess about when the sun would shine or the rain would fall, and one went wrong about that if the sun came a little earlier or a little later.
It is still the case that the dates are fixed on the best guess, and if the sun comes a little later or a little earlier the matter will still go wrong and the tariff will operate at the wrong time. It is so, for instance, in the case of strawberries, for which we are quadrupling the old rate for a fortnight. It is justified if the home crop comes on the market in quantity, but if it is late the date for the duty will be just as wrong, just as inflexible, just as ham-fisted as it is said the old quota system was. So I think one can argue too much on that.
One the other hand, I always understood that a quota scheme could not be expected to be continued in the long term because the very system was based on the balance of payments problem and not on protecting the home industry, and, therefore, we had to face the fact that a system of tariffs had to take the place of the quota scheme, if we wanted to do this on the long term, frankly protectionist basis and that is mainly why I


accept the fact that probably have to have this now.
There is one other thing I should like to say. I hope nobody will give encouragement to a view among the producers that paying specific duties at certain periods of the year and these Orders on imported produce are going to be the answer to the problem of the breaking of the market. My experience in the years I had the honour and pleasure of being a Minister responsible for agriculture and of sitting on the Treasury Bench was that we had real crises in particular branches of the horticultural industry. When one made inquiries into them it was astonishing how often one found the market became glutted and broken at a moment when there was none or very little foreign produce coming in.
The foreigner is blamed for glutting the market, for breaking it, but really the trouble is that we suddenly have a very big crop here. It comes rather unexpectedly. The producer has very little in the way of arrangements for breaking off the direct consumption market, for processing and storing, and releasing produce in an orderly way. As a result he rushes on and breaks his own market.
While I accept the Order, it would be quite absurd to tell my friends of the Worthing glasshouse industry, and those I met and liked at meetings at Wisbech, or those I met during the great onion trouble some years ago, or my friends in the Lea Valley, or any of those people, that this Order is the answer to that particular problem. Quite frankly, it is not. It is a help in that it will prevent the market from being broken by stopping produce coming here at a moment when we have enough, but it is by no means the general answer.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "absurd." Is it not equally absurd to impinge upon the interests of the growers, when, for instance, in the case of cherries, mentioned first in the Annex to this Order, vast quantities of Italian cherries arrive on our home market within a few days of the beginning of the marketing of the English crop?

Mr. Brown: I am a fairly junior Member of the House—even though I have been one for seven or eight years—but

one custom which is beginning to irritate me is that of an hon. Member who gets up to interject during somebody else's speech and, when the speaker gives way, thinking that the interjection is on a matter of elucidation, proceeds to make the speech which he was going to make later on in any case. The view which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has just expressed is a perfectly valid one for him to hold, but he ought not to have expressed it in the middle of my speech. It has nothing to do with what I have been saying.
I was hoping that the Parliamentary Secretary would state—because I should like to hear him do so—that we cannot stress too often and too firmly the fact that one of our problems is that the retail trade likes to handle foreign produce. It likes to do so very largely because of the conditions in which it receives that foreign produce. Since the retailer can very largely determine the price at which his produce is sold—within limits—if he is willing to deal in small amounts and take rather higher returns on each item, he can still take foreign produce, even if this Order is approved.
Even after this Order goes through, it is still very much a matter for the home producer to find out why it is that we go on marketing so much of our own stuff in sacks and in a condition in which it is bound to be at a disadvantage with foreign produce. It is true that in many cases, to the foreigner coming into our market, this is an export industry. He puts his best goods in his shop window, and he will therefore send his best stuff over here. No doubt the produce which he sells at home is not always marketed in quite the same condition. But that case is not quite so valid as is sometimes made out. It would be true to say that in1953 and 1954 many people, if they put their minds to it, could do a good deal better and be a good deal more competitive than they are.
While I accept the need for this Order, and while I agree that it will not have such a great effect on the housewives as is argued, nevertheless, if this were to be all that was to be done in the matter, I should think that we might almost be doing the industry a disservice by approving it. A great burden lies upon the industry to go forward with marketing


and packing and grading schemes. I was referring just now to the Worthing valley. I remember being invited down there some years ago to see an excellent packing and grading station—which I hope is still operating—which had been started on a voluntary basis. I talked to the people who ran it and found, as I have found on many other occasions, that it was being supported only when the producers could not get rid of their produce on the market. It was operating under quite impossible handicaps.
The industry must be told, in a friendly but very blunt way, that it has now had a good many years since the war in which to tackle this problem, and if it wants the good will of the housewives, the consumers and the rest of us, it must show evidence of willing in this matter. I do not believe that it can be done on a wholly voluntary basis. I believe that compulsory powers, exercised either by a marketing board under the Marketing Acts or in some other way, are essential. In the light of experience, I do not believe that we can rely on producers organising themselves efficiently on a voluntary basis.
The marketing schemes must really be marketing schemes. I have often joked with my hon. Friends about the fact that I got quite a bloody head on the night the Tomato and Cucumber Scheme was approved by this House. Looking back on what the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board has done, I wonder whether it was worth my getting a bloody head. The Board has done very little. It has not taken the powers that were reserved for it. It has made no real attempt to use them, and if we go on producing that kind of marketing scheme we shall not get very far. I hope that the producers will themselves make a real effort to produce marketing schemes which will be really worth while, operate grading and packing centres, introduce an oganisation of market intelligence, and do the job properly.
We are dealing here with the least co-operatively-minded persons. Quite naturally, his whole way of life is independent. If the pressure is too great for the leaders of the producers to do anything about it, the responsibility must rest on the Government. They cannot simply say, "We have put forward this Order. We have done our job. Now it is up to you. If nothing is done, that is the end of it."

There is an obligation on the Government—particularly as they are taking the risk of putting up the prices of food to the consumer—to do something about it.
There are ways in which the Government can take a hand. In Holland there is a scheme which has been working for a long time, in which an attempt has been made to get marketing and packing put upon a proper basis. I am told that it works extremely well. Officials from the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture have been over there to look at the Dutch system in operation, and their advice must be available to the Government Departments concerned.
The Government ought to produce a scheme. The Parliamentary Secretary had no doubt that that was necessary before he joined Her Majesty's Government. He wrote about this matter, as did other people, for the Conservative Party. He said, very bluntly, that this was the sort of organisation they would get going. I regret that some such scheme has not come forward together with this Order. I should have preferred to see the two things dealt with together. I should like us to be able to say to those concerned, "Here is the Order. It is true that it puts up duties, but here, also, is the other side of the penny—the new marketing scheme"—either the Government's scheme or, better still, the producers' scheme. I hope that we shall not have to wait very long for it.
Some of the opposition to this Order has arisen because of a misunderstanding. There have been many references to increases of 300 per cent., whereas most of the increases are of an order which is justified merely by the change in money values since these specific duties were originally introduced. I make the point here, as I have elsewhere, that ad valorem duties, because they are percentage duties, must obviously change with the change in money values. It would be absurd to have a specific duty that would not change when money values changed. Otherwise, the protection at the period of the year when we most want it would be less than the protection at the period of the year when we least want it.
I agree with my hon. Friends that this Order must not be the only answer, because it is not the real answer. There must now be some attempt to put this very difficult section of our agricultural


industry into a good state of order. The next move, logically, rests with the producers, but if they do not make it, it means that, because of the very fact that this Government have taken the responsibility for making this Order, the responsibility for producing a scheme rests very firmly on them. Subject to all those qualifications, I certainly advise the House to approve of the Order.

6.10 p.m.

Sir Waldron Smithers: The two speeches to which we have just listened are a good example of the French proverb, Qui s'excuse, s'accuse. The main excuse of the President of the Board of Trade was the continual high level of world prices, but the main reason for that continued high level is bulk purchase by the Government on behalf of the biggest consuming and purchasing country in the world. If we send one man into the world to buy for 50 million people, then, of course, the whole world puts up its prices against him.
In studying the Import Duties White Paper, I asked myself what possessed the Government to submit these proposals to the House. It is undeniable that six years of Socialist mis-government is still the main cause of the high cost of living. It is remarkable that the President of the Board of Trade has the support of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who has spoken for the Opposition. In spite of that, the Government introduce proposals which must increase the cost of living. I do not mind a bit whether that cost is small or great; no one seems to know exactly what the cost will be; but this is a matter of principle and must be fought tooth and nail.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: May I ask—

Sir W. Smithers: No, my hon. Friend may not. The other day the Government refused to consider increasing pensions of certain Service officers on the grounds of economy, that it would let loose the flood-gates for further demands and that the money was not in the till. A few days later they announce that they have given way to the pressure of the National Farmers' Union by increasing the import duties on five kinds of fresh fruit and 11 kinds of fresh vegetables. These changes can only increase the cost to the consumer

of the fruits and vegetables concerned above what it otherwise would be. There is no other purpose in making them.

Captain Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give way now?

Sir W. Smithers: No. This also would encourage similar demands from other quarters. It is an attempt by the Minister of Agriculture to placate a small but articulate group of producers at the expense of the great mass of the consuming public, particularly the poorer sections, such as old age pensioners. It is contended that home producers cannot stand the strain of unregulated imports. I maintain that it is the old age pensioners and others on fixed incomes who cannot possibly stand the strain of not being able to buy their food in the cheapest markets. It will force more of them to apply for National Assistance and increase Governmental expenditure which is far too high already.
If claims for higher pensions are to be resisted, then pensioners and wage earners must be allowed to make the best use of their present incomes by buying their food in the cheapest markets. There is no reason whatever why a small sectional interest, however worthy should be protected at the expense of the great mass of British consumers. Will the President of the Board of Trade tell us, when he replies, how many organisations representing consumers and the fruit and vegetable trades were consulted, who were opposed to these proposals, and why he rode roughshod over them? I suppose it is because they have not the same effective organisation as the National Farmers' Union.
If it be contended that home producers could not compete with imported produce, two questions must be asked and answered. First, are the home producers producing efficiently? The efficient growers do not need protection and these duties will bolster up the inefficient growers and remove a spur to greater efficiency.
Last night, I spent nearly an hour with 12 farmers who are up here for the fat stock show, and they all said, "We cannot be more efficient than we are because of Government interference and all the penal taxation which prevents us doing our best." The second question is: Are the producers of this country producing


the right thing? No one in his senses would put up greenhouses on the Kentish hills to produce oranges and bananas which grow in profusion out of doors in Southern and Eastern countries. But the principle is exactly the same in the case of any other fruit or vegetable. The right things to grow are the things which we can grow in competition with growers in other countries, and we have the advantage of not having to pay so much as they do in carriage and freight.
The fact is that if anyone or any Government tries to break the law of supply and demand, that law will break them and all our people. Let us never forget that England is the one great country in the world which is not and cannot become self-supporting. We have to import about half our food. To do so we must export goods and services, whatever the sacrifice or effort, at world competitive prices or starve.
The most important item affecting the cost of production is food. To increase the price of food seriously impairs our power to compete in world markets. Strong pressure is being brought all over the world to remove tariffs so that goods and services can move more freely. But free trade is vital to us all, especially to this country. Half the trade of the world is transacted on a sterling basis which enables us to earn invisible exports. Instead of increasing duties, I beg the Government to remove all controls and to make sterling freely convertible.
How can Britain honourably expect the U.S.A. to amend tariff restrictions in favour of our exports when we ourselves impose obstacles on the imports of horticultural produce from foreign countries? The White Paper states that it has been decided that the existing periods for which seasonal duties are charged on certain items marked with an asterisk should be adjusted. By whom? Who decides? As already stated, no one can foretell the weather or floods or storms. Do the Government or the N.F.U. really think that they are omniscient or omnipotent?
Will the Minister give the reasons why the list of fresh fruit and vegetables mentioned in paragraph 6 of the White Paper did not rank for higher duties? Will he tell the House what is the estimated amount of the proposed increase in im-

port duties, and will he bear in mind that it is much easier to impose tariffs than to take them off?
One other question. Will produce from the Channel Islands be classed as foreign and liable to duty?

Captain Duncan: It never has been.

Sir W. Smithers: If the pressure of the N.F.U. on this point is not resisted, it will mean expelling the Channel Islands from the British Commonwealth. The big principle behind all that I have tried to say, amid interruptions from my own side of the House, is this: that to remove all tariffs and controls would benefit the whole world, especially Britain, economically. It would also be a big contribution to the peace of the world because, if goods cannot cross frontiers, armies will.
I know that I have dropped a brick. [HON. MEMBERS: "Drop a few more."] I feel that it is my duty to say this and to try and warn the Government that they should beware of support from Members opposite, whose policy has brought us such great disaster from 1945 to 1951.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade: The importance of this debate arises partly, but not wholly, from the concern which is felt—and I believe very naturally felt—that the effect of these duties will be to increase the price to the consumer of a number of articles of great importance in the family budget. But it is also important, because I believe that this decision on the part of the Government commits the country to a long-term policy of dear food for the British people.
I am not one who attacks the Government for every item of food which is considered high in price. I am well aware of the high world prices of some articles of food, but we are not discussing high prices of food in the world today, but rather the reverse. We are discussing articles of food which at certain times in the year might be imported with great advantage to the housewife. I am aware that if one has to make a choice between tariffs and quantitative restrictions, on the whole there is an advantage in tariffs, although it is a choice of evils.
I agree with some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Belper


(Mr. G. Brown). Tariffs are not as flexible as is sometimes contended. I also agree with some of his remarks about what occurs when there is a glut in this country, even though no foreign products are being imported. I think there was considerable truth in his comments about marketing, packing and grading.
To return to this problem of tariffs versus quantitative restriction, I think that, on balance, there may be an advantage in tariffs. The decision which we are debating tonight involves, I believe, more than a consideration of the pros and cons of tariffs. It raises certain fundamental principles of our policy as a trading nation, and it is in the light of those principles that we must judge these Orders which we are being asked to approve.
I think that the decision to introduce these import duties is unfortunate for four reasons. In the first place, it is bound either to raise the costs of foodstuffs, or, at any rate, to check any possible lowering of those costs, and that will inevitably have its effect on the cost-of-living index. I know that it is not easy to arrive at any exact estimate of the effect on the cost-of-living index.
There has just come into my hands a leaflet entitled "Fruit and Vegetable Tariffs" issued by the Cheap Food League. I do not propose to quote the arguments put forward in that leaflet, although I think that they have been well set out, but merely to quote one or two facts and comments which I do not think will be disputed. If they are disputed, then no doubt hon. Members opposite will say so. The leaflet says:
The cost of foodstuffs in the Ministry of Labour's Cost-of-Living Index represents 399 out of total of 1,000 points for all items. No less than 62 points are allotted to fruit and vegetables, including potatoes. In cash terms, out of every £1 spent food as a whole represents 8s. expenditure, and fruit and vegetables 1s. 3d. of this amount. But the official calculations include the cost of only cooking apples, oranges and bananas in the fresh fruit section and the expenditure is that of an 'average family.' There are very good reasons for supposing that these average figures conceal a much higher proportionate expenditure on foodstuffs by families in the lowest income groups.
I think that is true, and that the effect of that will undoubtedly be felt. It will have the effect of either raising or main-

taining the cost-of-living index with the consequences, which we know all too well, on wage claims and on claims for higher pensions. That is the first consideration.
Secondly, there are the hardships to the housewives. I do not wish to trouble the House with a lot of quotations, but I think that the comment which was made in the leading article in the "News Chronicle" on 7th December deserves reading. In it there was first a reference to the views of the National Farmers' Union. I have listened to their views, and I appreciate the point which they are trying to make. But, nevertheless, I think that the following is a reasonable comment. The writer of the article says:
The National Farmers' Union is in a mellow mood. The new duties, it declares, 'should exercise an automatic regulation of imports according to the state of the home market.' Another, though less elegant, way of expressing this sentiment would be to say that the Government have taken steps to remove the danger that in some months of the year such food as strawberries, cucumbers, lettuce, mushrooms, cherries and tomatoes might really be plentiful and cheap.
The article goes on to say:
Among those who will have to struggle hardest to rejoice will be the British housewives who used to look forward, for instance, to making a lot of jam when strawberries were cheap.

Mr. Nabarro: We have now got the sugar.

Mr. Norman Dodds: One cannot make strawberry jam without strawberries.

Mr. Nabarro: Neither can one make it without sugar.

Mr. Wade: As I say, I appreciate the point of view of the producer, and there may have been a day—some hon. Members believe there was—when there was too much concern about cheap food for the consumer. I believe that we have gone too far in the other direction. In this little leaflet to which I have referred there is a reference to the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I have mentioned to the hon. Gentleman that I propose to quote that reference. It reads:
J. B. Godber, M.P., a member of the Tomato and Cucumber Board, speaking at the Annual General Meeting in November, 1952, justified the Board's existence by claiming that


by bringing pressure on the Government to stop the imports of tomatoes for 10 days in July of that year the value of growers' sales in those 10 days had been increased by £600,000 and wholesale prices rose from 7s. to 14s.–15s. per 12 lbs. In terms of retail prices this represented a rise from approximately 10½d. to 1s. 6d. to 1s. 8d. per lb. From the consumers' point of view in the region of £900,000 more was paid over the counter for something like 1,600 tons less fruit.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I am hoping to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later on in order to put the matter in proper perspective, but I want to make it clear that what the hon. Gentleman continued to quote was something which I had not said. Only the first part that he quoted was said by me.

Mr. Wade: That is perfectly fair, and I have no doubt that it will clearly be seen to be so from the report in HANSARD.
I will only detain the House with one more quotation from this pamphlet. It says:
In May of this year the Government stopped the importation of new potatoes on 16th May, some two or three weeks before the home crop was ready for market, in substantial quantity, and retail prices rose to 8d. to l0d. per pound—before the import prohibition they could be brought for 4½d. to 6d. per pound.
I do not think there can be any doubt that the effect of these import duties will be to increase prices to the consumer.
I have here a great many figures which I do not propose to read to the House, but the conclusion to which I have come is not only that the effect will be to cause a general rise in prices, but something equally unfortunate. The effect, as I calculate it, will be that the new tariffs on soft fruits will greatly increase the price of the early supplies of which the majority are imported before the British crop season opens. I believe many housewives will be unable to buy at all during the period of the early supplies. That is the second consideration.
The third consideration was touched on by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper, namely, that tariffs cannot speedily be removed. There are many formalities to be gone through, and the result is that when there is a sudden failure of the entire home crop the tariff remains and inevitably there follows those high prices which occur during periods

of great shortage. That is one of the serious disadvantages of a tariff. The fourth, and in the long run this is the most important, is the effect on inter national trade.
On 16th November of this year I asked the Minister a supplementary question—
Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no unilateral action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government which might lead other European nations to increase, rather than decrease their restrictions on international trade?
The Minister said:
Nothing which Her Majesty's Government is doing could in any way justify other countries in increasing their restrictions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th November, 1953; Vol. 520, c. 1888.]
Momentarily I felt hopeful, but my hopes were not justified because I believe that producers in other countries will regard this introduction of high tariffs as an action likely to decrease international trade, perhaps not intentionally, but that is the inevitable result.
I remember a good many years ago staying with some people in Brittany who depended for their livelihood on growing tomatoes and potatoes for the London market. It so happened that they were anxious to buy British goods, particularly cutlery from Sheffield and clothing for their children. If we take away the livelihood of such people it is obvious that they will no longer be able to buy British goods. Perhaps that is over-simplifying the situation, but that kind of thing will occur. Multiply that state of affairs a thousand fold and one gets some idea of the problem and of the harmful international effect of these restrictions.

Mr. David Renton: Is the argument of the hon. Member that people in Brittany who grow tomatoes should be encouraged to go on doing so, and become dependent upon them for their living, even if the tomatoes are not wanted by the London market because the home producers can grow them?

Mr. Wade: Where I differ from the hon. Gentleman is on the question as to whether they are wanted in the London market, because I believe there is a market for these goods from Brittany as well as for those which are produced in this country.
In conclusion, I gather that the Socialist Opposition are not proposing to


oppose the decision of the Government to introduce these import duties. It is not for me to say what Socialists should believe and do, but I should have thought that if they were concerned about the cost of living, about the difficulties of the housewife, about the problems of those in the lower income group in particular, they would have been anxious to oppose these import duties. Apparently I am mistaken, unless there is a change of heart between now and the conclusion of this debate. If there is no change of heart, we shall see something which perhaps is not so surprising today but would have surprised greatly many Socialists in days gone by: we shall see a Conservative Government and a Socialist Opposition marching along side by side in complete amity on the road of high protection.

Mr. F. Beswick: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, are we to gather from his last remark that the Liberal Party proposed to divide the House, and will he give the name of the other Liberal Teller?

6.33 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: I want to refer for a moment to the previous speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers), who seems to have vanished. The hon. Member holds certain views with deep conviction, which we appreciate and respect on both sides of the House. However, in one particular he was exceedingly inaccurate and I must preface my remarks by saying something in reply to what my hon. Friend said about the effect upon the cost of living of the proposed changes.
A number of observations have been made already about this, including the speech from the Liberal benches of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade): I have a small contribution to make to this which I confess is by my own calculation and taken from no document which is within reach of other hon. Members. With a view to getting perspective on what this will amount to over the range of the cost of living, it is worth noting that the value of goods imported on this list during the periods of protection is between £5 million and £7 million. That is about one-quarter of the total imports of horticultural produce, and about 5 per cent. of the total of £140

million of horticultural produce from this country and from abroad.

Mr. Beswick: indicated dissent.

Mr. Deedes: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Perhaps he will be able to produce some other figure. This is my own calculation and I make £7 million the maximum total which is to be imported during the restricted period under this head. Further, we are dealing only with the difference between the old and new rates on that £7 million and it should be remembered that the tariff will apply, we hope, when the home supplies are most available and at the most reasonable cost. That figure may not be entirely accurate but it is somewhere near the mark and, if accepted, it puts into perspective the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington about the effect of these tariffs on the cost of living.
We on this side of the House appreciated the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and I feel certain that he was glad to be able to make it today. It was, we suspect, a close-run thing. Let no one, he said, minimise the depth of feeling as to the possible effect of these tariffs on the cost of living. Well, let no one maximise the possible consequences of these tariffs. Whilst I do not want my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to think that one has underrated what has been done, this represents a maximum of £7 million over the whole field of £140 million, and over the import field of approximately £27 million.
I do not think there is any disagreement between the two sides of the House on whether or not horticulture should be given this modest measure of protection. I find that it is quite inseparable from the subject of agriculture, and I do not think that anyone who believes in security—and we know now that that means some form of artificial assistance for agriculture—can separate horticulture and decline to accept this now arrangement. We are emphatically not putting horticulture in a preferential position. This brings horticulture into the position where agriculture has been for quite a number of years. For technical reasons it has not been possible to do for horticulture what it has been possible to do for agriculture.
Yet it is sometimes overlooked that horticultural producers face exactly the same sort of costs as the farmers get reviewed in the February Price Review each successive year. The horticulturalist has to meet the increasing wages, the rising costs of raw materials and all the other costs which go into agricultural produce. It is sometimes overlooked, too, that he does not have the cushion of subsidies between him and his consumers.
As I understand it, the present rate of subsidy on home-produced agriculture is in the region of £258 million. If that were given to horticulture, which provides about one-tenth of our total agricultural produce, that would be £25 million between the horticultural producer and the housewife who buys fruit and vegetables. In that event we would not hear so many invidious comparisons between the prices that were paid before the war and those that have to be paid now. Those are all matters which people tend to overlook when speaking of the horticulturists' right to tariffs and protection.
I rejoice that my right hon. Friend has ended this quota system. I felt it was whimsical in operation and haphazard in effect. It tended to irritate some of the importers as much as it irritated our own producers, because on the Continent of Europe on more than one occasion it operated in such a way as to make life quite intolerable for the person trying to get a regular market in this country. I think tariffs operate more fairly towards European producers than the quota has ever done. At least they will not cause the same exasperation.
I do not want to take up much more time because there are others who want to speak, but I should like to add one word to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper said as to what we may expect from the horticultural industry. It has maintained all along that this form of protection was necessary for its long-term security, and I should now like to see the industry make some contribution to what we all desire to see, although we may desire to attain it in different ways—better presentation of its goods.
I am not altogether at one with the view expressed by hon. Members opposite on the subject of marketing, but that is a rather complicated subject on which

to enter now. We are agreed, however, that this industry could do more in the presentation of its goods and in the freshness of those goods. The best producers in the industry have shown what can be done if people are prepared to put their backs into it. What makes some of the marketing presentation in this country shameful is not a comparison with what is done in America or in continental countries, but what is done by the best British producers.
I hope we are not going to reach the point where the Government will have to introduce some centralised marketing scheme. I hope the producers in this country will follow the lead already given by the best of them, and that they will see that if they do not follow such a lead they will be relentlessly eliminated. With tariffs they cannot blame that elimination on anything but their own incompetence. I have expressed the ideal, and I hope it will be fulfilled. If it is, not only will the industry benefit but the housewife will benefit also. That is the justification for the fact that we on this side of the House are delighted to see my right hon. Friend introducing this scheme.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Gooch: It is not often that any Member on this side of the House is able to associate himself with proposals that come from the other side, but I want to say at the very beginning of my remarks that the proposals now before the House receive my support. I also want to reinforce what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, and perhaps make a few observations that will be appropriate because of my association with a particular section of the agricultural and horticultural industry.
I approach this question of tariffs with a due sense of responsibility to the house wife and to the commercial grower of fruit and vegetables. Today horticulture is a big and important section of the farming community. A considerable amount of capital is invested in it. I see that the figure suggested is £80 million, and it provides worth-while employment for a considerable number of men and women. Here again, it is suggested that the number of people engaged in the industry is over 150,000.
Thus I start with the proposition that this is an industry worth preserving and


if it is worth preserving it is entitled to fair play. What is more, the people who undertake the manual work are entitled to good wages and working conditions. It has taken some of us a long time to get the wages of the British farm worker up to present standards. They still fall short in many respects, but the wage standards today in farming and horticulture are a considerable improvement on what they were in earlier years.
I am not unmindful of the point which has been properly made that this industry should seek to help itself by instituting improved marketing, reducing costs of production and increasing efficiency. I am all for that, but I repudiate the general charge of inefficiency that is often brought against the farming community.
The Principal of the Royal Agricultural College, Cirencester, recently declared that the progress of agriculture during the last 12 years had been greater than in the previous 50 years, and he should know something about it. But when the horticultural industry has put its own house in order, the point made in the Lucas Report still remains, that no organised marketing arrangements can possibly stand up to unregulated imports.
The Agriculture Act, 1947, did great things for peace-time farming. That is why I am so sorry that it is being slowly undermined by the present Government. I not only approve the main provisions of the Agriculture Act, but I also keep in mind that it did nothing specific for horticulture, and that had the Labour Government remained in office they would have turned their attention to that.
I am not wedded to tariffs, but I ask my hon. Friends who object to these proposals what they would put in place of them. I respect very deeply the views held by many of my hon. Friends that the imposition of tariffs will increase prices to the housewife. But I want to express the contrary view. I do not think that the operation of the tariffs which are now proposed will have the effect of increasing prices to the housewife. I have always held the view that the middle-man who handles the fruit and vegetables gets too much out of them. We must deal with him in some way. My proposition is a simple one. We should put a bit more on for the grower and take a bit off the middle-man.
The grower of horticultural produce is a party to a great gamble, and he takes all the risks. I should like to give my own experience this year. I am not a commercial fruit and vegetable grower but just an ordinary occupant of a house with a very nice garden and plenty of fruit trees. I was expecting a plentiful supply of top fruit this year. My apple crop generally keeps me going till the following May. Alas, this year there was a very late frost and my total crop from 30 apple trees amounted to a stone or two. Of pears and plums I had none. It was a good thing that I did not have to rely upon my fruit crop for a living this year.
As I understand it, the duties which are now proposed take the place of quotas. Those who declare that prices will go up because of the imposition of higher duties obviously overlook the fact that there have been long periods hitherto when no imports have been allowed in, and it has not made prices go up. On this account alone, I submit that it would be quite impossible for a reasonable duty to have any worse effect.
I have never gone into the towns promising the people cheap food. I have gone into the towns certainly to condemn the present Government for reducing the food subsidies and thus making it more difficult for many deserving people to live. That I shall continue to do, but one cannot have cheap food and at the same time a fair remuneration to the growers and good wages and working conditions for the people who, in the main, do the actual work on the farms. In other words, I support these proposals, in the absence of what I regard as a workable alternative, because by so doing I am seeking to protect the interests of the many thousands of farm and horticultural workers whom I am pledged to serve.
I have endeavoured to take a very definite line with regard to the proposals which are now before the House, and it was my intention all the way along to go into the Government Lobby tonight if the occasion had arisen. But I do not think that tariffs alone will solve this problem. We must take a very bold line on marketing and distribution. I want to make the point, in the presence of a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, that when the Ministry really get down to settling this problem of setting up marketing


boards, I hope that there will be on every board consumer and worker representatives.
I think that the House will be interested in the workers' viewpoint and I give it to the House for what it is worth, in the following words:
The National Union of Agricultural Workers notes with interest the Governments plans to raise the import duties on certain fruits and vegetables and believes that these measures are likely to create a more stabilised market than do the existing quota arrangements.
The Union has always recognised that the horticultural producers have not had the benefits of security such as have been provided for producers of the main farm crops under the 1947 Act; it feels that the increased market stability which these measures should provide will assist the horticultural producers to plan for more economic production, and this, together with a more even flow of produce on to the market, should assist the consumer.
The Union feels, however, that the time has now come for much bolder action to assist the producer and consumer—namely a 'cleaning up' of the present wasteful and costly system of marketing and distribution which creates unrealistic local surpluses and shortages and accounts for a disproportionately high amount of the price paid by the consumer.
I give my blessing to the proposals that are before the House.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I only wish to intervene very shortly in welcoming these proposals by referring to an observation by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), in which there is great substance. He said in effect that the retail traders very often preferred to sell foreign produce because of the way it was packaged and presented. Other references have also been made to the fact that it is up to our own growers to produce on a level with, or as near as possible to, the best. There are, I understand, certain schemes, like the Westpack scheme in the West Country, which encourage growers to join voluntarily and produce their goods up to the standards required by that scheme. That should be extremely useful in encouraging producers to improve the standard of quality and presentation of horticultural produce in this country.
In fairness to our growers, several other points have to be borne in mind. First, as was said earlier by the right hon. Member for Belper, in many cases the export to this country of horticultural produce is one of the shop window exports of countries like France and Italy,

and they have a great deal of help from a first-class railway service. I would hope that the railways in this country will do their best to help our growers by producing good clean modern vans to assist them in getting their produce to market quickly, and that they will help them also in connection with the running of trains engaged on long-distance hauls, such as that from Cornwall, so that they can catch markets in time. Several times I have had complaints from producers in West Cornwall that owing to the way these things have been handled by the railways they have missed the markets and that therefore their produce could not appear as fresh as otherwise it would have done, that it was not as palatable and therefore not as likely to be bought.
There is also the question of non-returnable boxes or crates. Before softwood was de-rationed difficulty and expense was involved when these boxes had to be returned. Their average life was only three trips and it was therefore not a good proposition. Let us hope that now producers will be able to send their produce in good cheap non-returnable attractive ways and thereby make it more attractive to the housewife. An hon. Friend who was not with us for very long referred to cheap food. He did not appear to listen to many arguments on either side of the House, but he mentioned the question of cheap food. Perhaps he would like to see workers engaged in the horticultural industry having lower wages. It is a pity he is not here; we might have asked him. We who have these interests in our constituencies feel it only right that we should do what we can to see that those workers get good wages. If they are to be paid good wages, the industry must be helped by measures such as this.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) mentioned the question of the livelihood of a grower in Brittany. Is it not more important that we should study the livelihood of our own growers? The argument might be that they want to buy a glass of wine at Christmas in France. This works both ways. I would far rather see our own producers and growers have the first consideration, which is a policy we subscribe to. I certainly did in my Election campaign, and I am delighted to see this step has been taken to implement the promises made to our own growers. I congratulate


my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade upon the action he has taken.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Percy Daines: I hold that this is a bad Order. I am opposed to it. For party reasons, I cannot press my opposition to a Division, but I intend to register my protest completely tonight.
Not only do I think it a bad Order in what it seeks to do, but I think that the White Paper accompanying it is another not untypical example of a badly constructed explanatory paper. The way in which the figures are set out is quite confusing in more than one instance. There is no party point in this question. Documents submitted to Members of Parliament should be set out in a perfectly straightforward manner, so that any ordinary person without a legal training may understand them. When figures are used they should be set across the column so that can be clearly understood and confusion avoided.
Of course I admire the dexterity of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown). I listened with great interest to his recalling the occasion when I and a number of other colleagues were in what he termed a sanguinary conflict with him—a very unpleasant episode. I remember the sort of things we said, but I also remember that it was a Labour Government which took a leading part in formulating that body with the unfortunate name G.A.T.T. in October, 1947. The purpose of that organisation was to take this country and the world towards the road of reductions of tariffs and to remove trade barriers.
This is a most embarrassing debate, and I most frankly admit it. Here I find myself in some agreement with the venerable hon. Gentleman who spoke from the back of the Chamber, the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). He flitted in, gave vent to all sorts of sentiments, and flitted out again. As the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) once said, "Truth, of course, has many facets." I have to assume that truth also has many exponents. When that hon. Member said that this country depends upon the highest possible amount of world trade he was stating a simple truth. It is all very well for the hon. Member who flitted in from the Guernsey Islands and out again saying that he has

no interest in the Breton peasant—I see the hon. Member is back again and had only flitted from his usual place in the House.

Mr. G. R. Howard: I would not say that I came from Jersey or Guernsey. I have some islands in my constituency which have suffered, but quite differently.

Mr. Daines: Yes, but that does not alter the point. We have our interests in the Breton peasant, but if this country is not to go back to the morass of the inter-war years under Tory Governments where each country tried to look after itself, a way that culminated in a policy of autarchy of which Hitler was the most successful exponent, then we must avoid actions that limit the volume of world trade because we must suffer.
Here I suppose I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans), although I do not support him completely. It is a simple fact, whether we like it or not, that we have a direct interest in Denmark. It really matters to us, however much hon. Members may follow their vested interests—trade union, manufacture, or constituency—whether there is a healthy agricultural system in Denmark, in order that they may exchange goods with us and we can sell manufactured goods to them. I am not a Free Trader, I am not a Protectionist, and I certainly do not follow the Liberal Party line. As I believe the President of the Board of Trade said, one tariff starts another tariff. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will come clean when he replies to the debate. There is here a list of 18 horticultural products. What is the next product to be taken? I believe this is only the beginning, only the thin edge of the wedge.
In opening the debate the President of the Board of Trade said that he had to present this Order because it was a function laid upon him, but he had to present it and deal with it in a quasi-judicial capacity. I looked at him and remembered many of the past speeches before he became a Minister. I do not think I am treating him too unfairly by saying that he has a very strong and fervid belief in the old tariff proposals of the Tory Party. I can imagine the terrible conflict which must have raged in his breast when he had to face this problem in a quasi-judicial capacity. He must have suffered


from some form of political schizophrenia. When the President of the Board of Trade claims that he approaches this problem in a quasi-judicial capacity the House must surely know that he is after all a real Tory. I should not like to say that it is a case of Satan rebuking sin, but it is something very akin to it.
I agree also with hon. Members who have pointed out the effect of climate on the horticultural industry. But can it really be claimed that this increased tariff is going to circumvent the weather and ensure that the right measures at the right time are taken in order to get the best possible deal for the producer? Let us look at what I think is the sharpest piece of practice that has been pulled over this topic. I listened to the right hon. Gentleman and his opposite number on this side of the House. The general case put over is that the purpose of the increase of tariff is to see that when glut time comes, or when there is high production, the bottom does not fall out of the market and in that way the whole system is justified. But what are the facts?
If we turn to the question of tomatoes, we find that the Government smack on 4d. a lb. starting with 1st May. Tomatoes are not sold in this country at the beginning of May at 6d. a lb. That is the time when the growers in this country are getting the bigger figures, 2s. 6d. and 3s. 6d., but smack goes the 4d. It is not a question of safeguarding supplies, but of maintaining the price whilst the going is good.
There is also another reason why the imposition is made at that time. It is because when we gat to the fag end of the fruit season the salads, as they come in, always command their highest markets.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: The hon. Gentleman has referred to 4d. a lb. being put on. Is it not a fact that the duty is already 2d. a lb. and that this alteration means a further 2d. not 4d. a lb.?

Mr. Daines: I am sorry, but I cannot check that figure. I had checked it carefully this afternoon on I think, page 7 of the White Paper. Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the Order? According to the Order—I am referring to the top of page 4, and I stick to this—it states that from 1st May to 31st May, if the

value exceeds 1s. 3d. per lb. then the figure, given in the next column, will be 4d. per lb., which I take it is the increase.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Maitland: I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving way again but it is as well to get the matter clear. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the White Paper, page 7, he will read in item (x) that 4d. represents the new duty whereas the existing duty is 2d. and, therefore, the difference is 2d. per lb.

Mr. Daines: I am obliged for that correction, but if the hon. Gentleman was present when I began my speech, he will agree that what he says confirms the point I made—that this is a confusing document and is most difficult to understand. [Laughter.] I do not see anything funny about that. The argument is still just as valid whether the figure is 2d. or 4d., but I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure intervened to help me to make my speech correctly, and for that I am grateful to him. But my argument is still the same so far as the principle is concerned.
I turn to the question of the poverty of the horticultural industry, particularly the tomato and cucumber industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper made references to it, and other hon. Members have done. It is perfectly true that the glasshouse industry had a very bad year last year. The losses were terrific. It is equally true that the previous year was not a particularly good one. What is also true is that for the preceding 10 years it had made fabulous profits.
One of my hon. Friends spoke of the 30s. paid in the Lea Valley. The Lea Valley—I have lived in it most of my life—had some of the rottenest employers imaginable in the horticultural industry before the war. In the period of roughly between 1941 and 1951 those same people not only paid £6 plus overtime but in order to avoid paying the money to the Income Tax collector they paid an average of about £50 to £60 to each employee as Christmas bonus. The profits made up to two years ago in the tomato and cucumber trade were fantastic, and the argument about the industry's lack of prosperity do not take us very far.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Memberclaims that profits are fantastic, but he produces no figures and evidence. He tells us that these employers helped their employees to the extent of giving them a bonus, which is surely a good thing. Surely it does not follow that an employer who gives abonus is making fantastic profits. The hon. Member should produce something more concrete before making these accusations.

Mr. Daines: The hon. Member talks about wild accusations, but I was a director of a Co-op which had a large nursery in the Lea Valley, and I am talking from practical experience of what happened. I shall be happy to provide the hon. Member with a balance sheet. In the meantime we will let it go at that. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] I have not come here armed with every figure but I will certainly provide the hon. Member with a balance sheet if he wishes to see it.
I wish to say a few words about cauliflowers. I do not want to make any reference to the quality of the packing but it is a fact that the average produce that comes in from abroad is more efficiently packed than our own. When a plea is put for the cauliflowers that comes from the South of England let us face the fact that every Italian cauliflower that comes into this country has a very substantial freight charge behind it. I am advised that on each cauliflower that comes from Italy there is a freight charge of 4½d. to 5d.

Mr. Frederick Peart: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that in relation to Italian producers we have also to consider their production costs in the light of the low wages paid to Italian workers.

Mr. Daines: I grant that completely, but no one can tell me that the labour costs represented in a cauliflower are anything of the order of from 4½d. to 5d. I am trying to give a balanced picture of the economics involved.
I agree with every hon. Member who has spoken that from the standpoint of growing our people are the best in the world. If we considered only the growing and let it go at that, I do not think that anyone can beat them. Where they go wrong is by not getting efficient marketing all the way through. There

is no greater example of that than the tomato industry.
I see opposite the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), who is a member of the Board. I opposed the Order when it came before the House. I said that it was purely a smokescreen in order to get the tariffs through. I object to producer boards; I do not object to boards with a real consumer element of control upon them. My complaint to the hon. Member for Grantham is that you have really done nothing in order to make the scheme work. So inefficient have you been in your job—that I think it was at your last annual meeting you faced a resolution to revoke the whole scheme, and about one-third of your members were ready to finish with the whole scheme.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member should address the Chair.

Mr. Daines: I am very sorry, Sir. The last speech or two that I have made in the House have been so non-controversial that I forgot what one should do when one is becoming really controversial. I sincerely apologise.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman who is favouring us with remarks about marketing boards will explain why the whole system has broken down. It has not worked and there is no real sanction behind it.
That completes what I have to say but I repeat that I am not a Free Trader. On the other hand, I do not believe in Tariff Reform, and I can tell the Government that there are substantial elements in the Labour Party who view the decision embodied in the Order with the gravest misgiving. We are not opposing it in the Lobby tonight, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to realise that our opposition is very real and we are convinced that as further Orders come forward the effect on the standard of living of our people will be serious.

7.19 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I begin by asking a specific question. It relates to fruit pulp, particularly raspberry and strawberry fruit pulp. I do not think it is clear from the White Paper or the Order what the actual situation is. In column 2, page 9, of the White Paper, the existing rates of duty on fruit pulp are set out, not only for


apples, but for all other kinds of fruit pulp. The right-hand column, however, which is headed "Revised rates of duty" is blank. Therefore, no decision seems to have been made for this particular commodity. On 30th November, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said:
Quantitative restrictions, including seasonal restrictions, will be removed tomorrow on imports of the range of goods covered by the decisions recorded in the White Paper…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1953; Vol. 521, c. 112.]
In the Order, however, there is no mention whatever of fruit pulp, except a reference to apple pulp. In regard to all the other kinds of pulp, therefore, I ask whether a decision has been made. Is it covered by my right hon. Friend's statement on 30th November and, therefore, does the tariff rate remain at 15 per cent.; or is it not covered by the statement, in which case can the quantitive restrictions next year remain in force on the same lines as for the last two years?
This is a matter of some importance in the part of the world from which I come, because we grow something like 15,000 to 17,000 tons of raspberries, much of which is turned into pulp and eventually into jam. If the Dutch and Belgian pulp is allowed to be imported, it would make a very big difference to the prosperity of the industry. It is important, therefore, that an announcement should be made so that we may know something about the future of those engaged in the industry. What I have said applies not only to raspberries, but to every other form of soft fruit pulp.
In general terms, I very much welcome the Order. Our horticultural industry is of great importance to the country. It produces every year over 2 million tons of vegetables, 800,000 tons of fruit, and flowers and nursery stock to a farm gate value of £17 million. That represents a total of something like £110 million worth of produce from farms and smallholdings.
These quantities are produced very largely by the smaller holdings. A document published by the Ministry of Agriculture in 1948, giving a specimen selection of the size of holdings in the county of Middlesex, shows that 83·5 per cent. of the number of holdings were of less than 10 acres. It is, therefore, very largely a smallholding industry and in

consequence far more people are involved than if the industry were run on a farming scale.
My next point is that the Order represents a measure of liberalisation. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade), taking the old free trade line, which I remember from the days of 1931, still objects to tariffs on a small section of horticulture. What I want to impress upon the hon. Member and on my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) is that this proposal is much more liberal than the existing quota system.
The quota system is rigid; that is to say, when there is production of goods at home and the quota comes down, there can be no foreign imports whatever, whereas now, under the tariff system, if the goods are more favoured and more suitable, the importer has only to pay the tariff and he can always get the goods. That is a greater degree of liberalisation than the quota system, but it is not always realised by those who still favour the idea of complete freedom of trade.
As my right hon. Friend said, the National Farmers' Union produced their application in 1950, and they worked hard on it until 1953. In a Press statement they have said:
The N.F.U. welcomes the Government tariff decision as an important step towards the long-term regulation of horticultural imports, which is so vital to the industry.
It is important to note that the National Farmers' Union, who have been negotiating for three years to get this stability and security, are in the main satisfied with the results of their labours. I can only hope that they have been right and that this stability which they say they will get will in fact, come about.
On the other hand, I cannot help agreeing with the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who said that even with protection from the foreigners there are times of glut because of over production at home. In the 1950 Parliament, I attacked the then President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers for not warning producers that in their response to requests by the Government they were, in fact, approaching over-production at home in some of the items that they had been urged to continue to produce.
Various hon. Members have referred to the question of marketing in the future. I have great sympathy with the view that a development of marketing is important. We have had experience of this already. The Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board has been in operation and is getting on its feet, but we have also had a failure. The Apples and Pears Marketing Board did not come to fruition because the farmers would not support it; they may have had good reason for refusing. My opinion on the question of marketing is that we are feeling our way.
In a Ministry of Agriculture document—Economic Series No. 49, "Co-operative Marketing of Horticultural Produce"—is quoted the experience of co-operative marketing by various bodies in Cornwall and at Worthing and other parts of the country, showing their varying success and failure. I would much rather that sort of thing went on, continuing the experiments behind this protective tariff for a short time, before we adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Belper whereby the Government would butt in with a compulsory scheme.
I do not think the time has yet arrived when we have found the right method of co-operative marketing for these perishable products, and products which do not supply the market for any great length of time. Strawberries, for instance, occupy the market for a month. If we had a strawberries marketing board, it would have nothing to do for 11 months in the year. We have got to feel our way towards the right method of dealing with co-operative marketing.
A lot of work is being done on a voluntary basis, and some on a compulsory basis. Eventually I hope that we may get the right answer. The Report to which I have referred was for 1948 and not 1949. It may well be that the Ministry of Agriculture should now have another survey to show what has been done since then so that we can have another report along the same lines. I agree with much that has been said. We can produce the goods all right, but we are not absolutely certain yet that we can market them to the best advantage.

Mr. Coldrick: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentle-

man readily admit that the failure of the marketing boards has been largely due to the fact that they were not composed of representatives commanding universal support and, as they were composed entirely of producers, they met the antagonism of the distributors and consequently nullified their own purpose.

Captain Duncan: We are not in a position to say that any marketing board has failed. One is operating and the other never came into operation. It cannot be said that either has failed.
I was surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) should attack these tariffs. I remember the day in 1931when I first got into Parliament when, after two years of a Labour Government, the agricultural and horticultural producers were broke. We had to do something drastic to protect horticulture. One of the first actions we took was to put a 66⅔ emergency duty on all horticultural produce, and my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington supported that.
After that, when the main tariff structure was built up in 1932 and we had the Import Duties Advisory Committee, we were able to revise the rates and put them at the right level. Then war came and the Import Duties Advisory Committee was put to sleep. We are getting back to the tariff era. We are getting away from controls and quotas. We are getting back to a freer economy where we have tariffs instead of controls and quotas.
I am not at all certain but that the time has arrived when we ought to revive the Committee either in its old form or in a new form. We had complaints that various organisations have not been adequately consulted. That was mentioned, and we have a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29 organisations which have submitted representations, but feel they have not been brought into the picture. Before the war, when the Committee was in operation, this could never have happened. Under the system operated then there was advertisement and consultation. The Committee, which was a non-party, non-political, independent organisation, gave advice to the Government and the Government had to make the decision.
Obviously, when dealing with tariffs we cannot consult retailers and consumers about the actual rates. There


would be all sorts of difficulties in the way. For instance, some people would anticipate tariffs and try to buy in advance of their operation. I do not believe that it will be wise for the Board of Trade to go in for that sort of thing in future. After all, what will happen to us as Members of Parliament? If this list does not prove to be satisfactory, the growers will come to us. They will lobby us. Is it right that we should have to be subject to lobbying? There might be allegations of bribery and corruption in the Board of Trade. I do not say that they would necessarily be accurate, but it would give ground for suspicion if the tariff rate was wrong, if it was high—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is going a little wide of the Order. He is discussing the general tariff question, which is not in issue now. We are dealing only with the Order about fruit and vegetables.

Captain Duncan: I shall conclude by saying that we ought to get back to the pre-war system, which did work. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider that.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: We have certainly come some distance from the Gilbertian state of affairs when we were having a magnificent defence of free trade from the Tory benches. I must confess that, being a free trader, I feel that I am still in a slightly Gilbertian position with one cheek, so to speak, on this, the free trade bench.
I was present long years ago with the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) on that day of shame when he and his party stood up and waved their Order Papers at the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative Government who put the clock back in the way that he did in 1932. I must say that it gives me some little satisfaction to hear that there are some Members of the Conservative Party who are prepared to speak, as did the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) in defence of free trade.
Whatever one may think of the method which the Government are adopting to help the horticultural industry, we can all agree that it is desirable that something should be done to help it. I know that if one talks of a Government help-

ing an industry one is apt to give an impression of something all powerful helping an industry which is inefficient. Neither of those suppositions is true in this case. Indeed the President of the Board of Trade, very properly, drew attention to his own limitations in the matter of all powerfulness when he said that he had to be constrained in his attitude towards these matters by the fact that he had to look after all the interests of the country and not just the one with which he was dealing at a particular moment.
Of course he has, and it is most certainly not true, in my small experience, to say that the horticultural industry is inefficient. But this is certain: whereas agriculture in the broader sense was a recipient of benefits under the Agriculture Act introduced by the Labour Administration, this horticultural industry was not, though it has to bear some of the burdens of that Act in that, if they are inefficient, horticulturists may be turned out of their holdings. It was always promised that something would be done to bring them security, but until now nothing has been able to be done.
I am not at all sure that anything that is now being done will be of much benefit, but an attempt is being made. Though this is not my personal experience, I have noticed in North Lincolnshire, where my constituency is situated, that recently horticulturists have been having a hard time. I heard with interest what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) about the Lea Valley horticulturists and the profits they were making, but I have not noticed that that has been true of North Lincolnshire. On the contrary, I know of cases where horticultural holdings have not been fully exploited but have been partially left uncultivated for the simple reason that things have been going very badly indeed.
I make no reflection at all against the hon. Member for East Ham, North, but I have noticed that people who make exorbitant claims about the immense profits of horticulturists and agriculturists in general are very often persons who are very well lined, owing to their connection with some perfectly secure city industry. They seem to exhibit bitter resentment if a person engaged in agriculture has a wife with a car and a fur


coat. In their view it is perfectly normal that that should be the case with an industrialist, working in the City.
I strongly disapprove of that attitude. I consider the farmer has every bit as much right—to put it as its very lowest, because I do not wish to cause any controversy—to claim wealth from society as a result of his efforts as anyone engaged in some industry far less subject to the vagaries of nature than is agriculture or horticulture.
At present the horticulturist is subjected to a most extraordinary rise in the cost of his production. I do not think anyone would dispute that. Labour costs have risen, many of us are glad to say, by 300 per cent. to400 per cent. and I suppose that they constitute about 50 per cent. of production costs. We come therefore to the result which I have mentioned. We find horticulturists having to abandon part of their holdings and endeavouring to find work outside the industry. That is a state of affairs which I do not like at all.
These Orders impose some tariffs which did not exist before. Even with regard to tariffs I should like to think it is desirable to achieve some sort of objectivity. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South to this extent at any rate, that these Orders here being considered do not seem to be a question of Free Trade and protection at all. This is a question of a shift as between two kinds of protection. Indeed, in my view it is a shift from an undesirable to a less undesirable kind of protection, and therefore, I am not worried on that score. However I do not think it will come to very much in the way of real assistance to the horticultural industry.
It is true that when prices are low in this country because home supply is good, the foreigner will not find it worth his while to pay the tariff. When prices are high in this country the opposite may be the case. It is true also that there will be a certain amount of flexibility in the operation of a tariff which would not obtain in the operation of a quota which might be on one day but off the next.
I do not think it should be forgotten that the foreigners who send us their horticultural produce tend to send the best quality and to supply us cheaply, because

they are able to supply their own markets with goods of a lower quality perhaps at a much greater price. They are able to do this because we are unable, for climatic and other reasons, to attack them in their own home markets. Never has our horticultural industry been in a position of equality with foreign rivals who try to supply our markets.
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) that this will not achieve any startling result, though he did not say so in those words. He emphasised—and in this he should be supported by us all—that it is now up to the producers themselves to do everything they can to achieve an adequate, sensible, scientific and modern system of marketing, packing and grading. There was a time when it was not altogether their fault that their goods were less well packed than those of their rivals. But that state of affairs is passing and it is now up to them. I think also that they should show that they would welcome a move by the Government to get them together. There are always recalcitrant members of any society. We have them in this House—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who are they on this side?

Mr. Mallalieu: —and in other societies, and it is not an unusual thing to find them even among farmers and agriculturalists. But they should get together to achieve more in the direction of scientific marketing, packing and so on, and then I think they will have every chance of competing satisfactorily with their foreign rivals.
There was always one respect—at least since the Agriculture Act came into operation—in which horticulturists were at a disadvantage compared with farmers. The farmer could more easily obtain credit than could the horticulturists, for the simple reason that the horticulturist had no secure markets and fixed prices. Now the party of City big business is rapidly removing the security which the farmers enjoyed under a Labour Administration, and so I suppose that things will be evened out in this matter between the horticulturalists and the farmer.
There are, however, many of us, including I am glad to say an increasing number in the farming community, who believe that it will not be long before


labour again has the chance to bring back security to the countryside.

7.49 p.m.

Mr. J. B. Godber: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu), but he slipped up rather badly in his last few sentences and I find myself in entire disagreement with him in that respect. It spoilt what was otherwise a very useful speech.
On a number of occasions I have declared my interest in this House, and so I do not think there is any need for me to say so again; but in view of the pointed comments made by hon. Members opposite, I may say that I think most hon. Members know that I am interested in tomatoes and cucumbers.

Mr. Renton: Are not we all?

Mr. Godber: Yes, but in a different way.
I wish to take up one or two of the points made by hon. Members opposite and I am sorry that two hon. Members to whom I wish to refer are not present in the Chamber at this moment. The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) took me up on a document which we all received from the Cheap Food League and in which a few wards of mine were quoted. They were words I used at the annual meeting of the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board in 1952.
As so often happens, only a very few words were taken out of their context and they look entirely different in the context in which they were placed in the document. In fact, the point here is made fairly clearly, that wholesale prices rose from 7s. to 14s. a box over a period of 10 days. I think it just as well to point out that certainly there was that rise, and that is exactly what I said. But it is fair to say that the price of 7s. was very much below the cost of production at that time. The point I was making was that the Government stepped in and brought about a price which bore more resemblance to the production costs and gave the producer some sort of return. I do not think it should be the policy of any Government to allow a producer to be in such a position that he cannot possibly earn a living, as was the case during those few days.

Mr. James Hudson: The gravamen of the charge, if it be a charge, is that in those 10 days to which the hon. Member has referred there was an increase of £600,000. They were not in a position of poverty; the advance was very remarkable.

Mr. Godber: Yes. I think in actual fact—I am speaking only from memory—that the period was 14 days, but I accept the figure of £600,000. It was a substantial figure, I agree, but the point is that had that increase not taken place, the producers would have lost that sum of money, because the price was below the cost of production. They were entitled to the recoupment of their loss of production, and that is the extent of the gravity of their position had it been allowed to continue.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) talked a great deal about the profits of tomato growers in the Lea Valley. I have no direct contact with tomato growing in the Lea Valley, but I believe conditions there are much the same as in the rest of the country. Certainly the tale which the hon. Member told us was extremely misleading. There is no question of those fantastic profits having been made over the years he mentioned. I grant that during the war substantial profits were made by the large nurserymen, most of whom are congregated in the Lea Valley, but since 1947 they have had a very difficult time and have not made very large profits. It is quite wrong to suggest otherwise, for it gives an entirely wrong impression.
The Tomato Marketing Board has been taken to task by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) for not having done enough. The right hon. Gentleman introduced the Board, and he admitted that he had difficulties with some of his hon. Friends when he did so. Some of his hon. Friends have made a similar charge against it. We ought to be quite clear what sort of Board it is. It is a regulatory Board and not a trading Board, and there is a world of difference between the two.
Its powers were extremely limited in the first place. Had the right hon. Gentleman wanted it to do more, he could have given it more powers when he introduced it. Matters would have been easier if it had had additional powers. It is


possible for the Board to ask for more powers, but in view of what has happened with other schemes which have been introduced, the moment does not seem opportune.
With its very limited powers, the Board has done a great deal of good work in improving the quality of the packing and the presentation of tomatoes for the British market. Hon. Members have referred to that matter in connection with all sorts of horticultural products. The Board is doing a great dealon those lines. It is important to ensure that there is a sound quality article before we extend the activities of the Board. The charges which have been made are quite unfounded.
There is a difference between tariffs and the quotas which we have had up to the present time. The new tariffs replace the quotas, and they will be very much better from the point of view of both producer and consumer than the arbitrary type of quota. It is only right to emphasise that this is not an entirely new impost, as some hon. Members have suggested, but a change from one type of control to another. That must be appreciated.
What was the position before the war when the tariffs were first instituted? They originated in 1932. It is interesting to note what was said in Command Paper 4690 of 1934 which contained the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee. It said:
There is a general consensus of evidence as to the large increase in home production and as to the advance made in marketing methods, and from no quarter has it been suggested that prices generally have been affected to the detriment of the consumers.
That was two years after the original duties were introduced. It is a fair example of what happened previously, and we have every right to expect that the same sort of benefits will accrue to the consumer as well as the producer as a result of the duties now imposed.
It is nonsense for hon. Members to talk about it as if it were something new and quite different. All the Government have done is to bring the pre-war tariff rates up to something like parity with post-war conditions. In some cases parity has not even been reached. An ad valorem tariff would automatically have more

than doubled in monetary value during that period. It is nonsense to say that increasing a tariff from 2d. to 4d. is anything out of the ordinary. It is nothing more than an attempt to restore the balance, and that fact ought to be realised.
In the light of what some hon. Members have said about protecting inefficient producers, it is valid to remember that horticultural products are not the only commodities which are subject to tariffs, and even considerable tariffs. Many manufactured items bear heavy tariffs. For instance, cars bear a duty of 33⅓ per cent.—I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) is not at the moment in the Chamber.

Mr. Nabarro: I am in the Chamber. I am temporarily sitting behind my hon. Friend.

Mr. Godber: I was about to say that woollen carpets bear a duty of 20 per cent. Another example is household glass, which has a duty of 30 per cent. All these duties have automatically advanced as ad valorem duties. Why should other duties be held artificially at a low level in the face of such advances? It is important to realise that in some measure these tariffs are being brought into line with what they were before the war.
There are certain items bearing tariffs which are not high enough, and these should be looked at again. I appreciate the difficulties in relation to G.A.T.T. which prevent some alterations and improvements from being made, but there are instances where something can be done. For instance, no protection is provided for main-crop carrots. I am glad that something has been done for the early carrot grower, but there is no protection for the main-crop grower. In the case of onions, it is unfortunate that the period of protection by specific tariff is not carried on for a further month. The period ends on 30th November. An extension of one month would have encouraged home production of onions a great deal more.
I wish to inquire about other items of horticultural produce which are not covered by the Order, such as nursery stock, flowers and bulbs. These items were covered by pre-war tariffs, and I


presume some action is being taken about this. I should like to know when we shall get the new figures. In the case of nursery stock, it would be helpful if the figures came at the beginning of a new season, so that nurserymen would know where they stand, rather than in the middle of a season.
I want to draw attention to something which I saw in the "Economist" last Saturday. That journal is never kind to agriculture. It seems to try to distort the position too frequently in the case of both agriculture and horticulture. On page 733 of the "Economist" last Saturday there was a sentence which I thought deserved some refutation. Talking about the new tariffs and picking out tomatoes in particular, the "Economist" said:
…the Government has firmly committed itself to the policy of dear food in Britain in order that the present number of British market gardeners may go on growing tomatoes uneconomically in hothouses.
The clear inference is that we are providing a tariff to enable the home producer to produce tomatoes in hothouses instead of our importing a more cheaply produced article grown in the open. But it must be known to the writer of the article—the writers in the "Economist" may be prejudiced but they are not ignorant—that the tariffs are not applied against the outdoor grown tomato, as the main import at that time of the year is of glasshouse grown tomatoes.
The main import duty, if not the whole of it, at this time of year is imposed on glasshouse tomatoes, and the reason we cannot produce as cheaply as the foreigners is because of the geographical situation of the countries from which we are importing, but their products are produced under glass in the same conditions as ours. It is only right and fair to point that out, because it would obviously be wrong to encourage the production of glasshouse products here when they are readily replaceable by natural grown imports of equal quality. I feel that it is necessary to point that out.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on what he is doing here, and I am certain that it will do something of benefit to both producer and consumer, and that it will not have a detrimental effect on the consumer, because it will provide greater stability, so that we shall not have sharp rises and

falls, but more even prices. I believe it will show, as it did before the war, that we shall have better and more even prices which will be of benefit to both producer and consumer.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: Reference has been made in the debate to the introduction of the emergency duties of 1931, but I am able to remember the days of the Tariff Reform League of Joseph Chamberlain and the support given to that campaign by hon. Members opposite or their forebears. I also remember at that time holding a different view and opposing that campaign, but the course of time brings changes.
In those days, it was thought necessary to buy cheaply all over the world in order that we could produce cheaply, and then it did not matter so much if it was to the detriment of our own agricultural industry. Today we cannot afford to be so complacent about it. We have to remember in these days, when home production is so vital to the nation, that the importation of what we can produce ourselves must be regulated, and that is all that these duties are supposed to do.
Up to now, the method of the quota has been used, and I think it was quite suitable in the days when it had to be used. They were times of currency difficulties such as we had only two years ago and in the years just following the war, times when currency restrictions were necessary, and when we had to act quickly. Quantitative restriction, for a purely financial reason, was thus necessary. Now, in times of greater plenty and more stability, it is better to find a somewhat less drastic way to protect that section of the agricultural industry which has not received any help under the Agriculture Act, 1947; that is, the horticultural industry.
Moreover, tariffs do not prevent trade with the Continent. We must trade with the Continent. For instance, Italy has a large population on a relatively small area of land on which her people have to try to make a living, because no longer can Italy send people away by millions to America, as she used to do. There has been a tremendous development of horticulture in Northern Italy, and if we can do anything to help that development,


I think it is desirable in the interests of Europe as a whole.
Then there is France, and we have had now a long period of friendship and mutual trade between our two countries. It is fortunate in a way that both these two countries in Europe have seasons more advanced than ours, so that they can send us horticultural products at a time when they will compete less severely with the products of our more northerly climate. Therefore, it seems to me that it is right so to scale the tariff that its incidence falls mainly in the time of the main crop, thereby giving facilities for a country like Italy or France to send us their early season crops, which will be of advantage to housewives in this country.
At the same time, I cannot help wondering whether these dates at which the increased tariffs take effect are quite right. That is a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), and which he might have developed to a greater extent. I dare say that it is all right to put the increased tariffs on cherries on 1st June or on strawberries on 10th June, for after that date we begin to get into the main crops, but I am a little doubtful whether we should impose the increased tariff on gooseberries and tomatoes on 1st May. I am open to conviction on that, but it seems to me that a later date would be more advisable. I doubt very much whether the main crop is really available at that time.
These are only criticisms of detail, because I think the principle is right. If the nation gives that measure of protection in the form of these tariffs to the industry, I think that the industry in return must give something to the nation in the form of efficient marketing. We have heard from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) about the working of the Tomato Marketing Board, and I am glad that the attempt made to put it out of existence last year was unsuccessful. I am certain that the work of that Board was excellent, considering how restricted were the Board's powers. I very much regret that a similar Board was not set up for the apple-producing section of the industry. After a great deal of discussion by the National Farmers' Union, a scheme was produced, but, unfortunately, sufficient votes for its adoption were not obtained.
I am sure the nation will not agree to these measures of protection unless the industry helps itself by such marketing schemes. It is up to the Government, if the industry does not put itself in order in this respect, to take measures to make sure that it does, by imposing some scheme of their own on the industry. The matter cannot be left entirely to the industry. Therefore, although I think that, on matters of detail, it is possible that this tariff scheme may be revised, on the whole, I think it is a desirable thing to give this assistance to a branch of the industry which has not benefited from the operation of the Agriculture Act, 1947.

8.10 p.m.

Brigadier O. L. Prior Palmer: For a very few minutes I wish to detain the House. I know there is another debate coming on and, furthermore, I was fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on the debate on the Address when I spoke at length on this subject.
I first wish to congratulate the Minister on what he has done. It is interesting to note, and I hope that the horticultural industry will note it, the length of time that it has taken us to do it. This happens when we are dealing with international matters like trade agreements, such as G.A.T.T. Within a fortnight of our getting into power it was decided that this was one of the objects of our policy, but it has taken us nearly two years to get the agreement of other countries to the waiver which we obtained the other day at the recent conference.
I regret very much that the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) is not here, and I am sure we all regret her illness. I am certain that it would be very interesting to hear her point of view on this matter. I do not think that the party opposite are at one in supporting this Order, although the majority of them do support it. Those who do not must make up their minds whether or not they agree that a flourishing horticultural industry is necessary or not to this country. In these days of the cold-war, or the warm war, the horticultural industry is one of our arms of defence. The matter is as serious as that. For that, if for no other reason, the horticultural industry must be helped in every way possible by the Government. I join in the plea which has been made by other


hon. Gentlemen, and I add to it that the horticultural industry must also help itself.
This tariff has been one of the policies of the National Farmers' Union for a very considerable time. I hope that they are aware of what may be one of its big dangers. The tariff is unlikely to be any more flexible than the quota system, and I hope something can be devised to make it so. It is necessary to try to compete with the vagaries of the weather by being able to raise or lower the tariff at short notice. That was one of the defects of the quota system, because the quota would be laid on months before and ships were already loaded and possibly on their way. We could not stop them if the weather changed. A tariff system by some sort of sliding principle may be able to overcome that difficulty. I hope that the Minister will look into this matter. Any Government of whichever party gets the blame when the weather puts these calculations out of gear.
The other warning that I should like to issue tonight is the danger of other countries putting on hidden subsidies to off-set the tariff. I confess that I have not thought of a way of getting round that difficulty, but I trust that those who are more aware of these things may be able to do so.
I hope the industry will realise how long it takes to get these things done, and now they are done, that the industry will attempt to reach a high overall state of efficiency. I do not blame them up till recently, when packing materials were not available, but they have no excuse now. Sugar has been taken off the ration, and that should help the industry considerably. The Government have tried to help the industry in other ways, but it must help itself. I would be very reluctant to follow the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), who said that the Government should compel the industry to adopt marketing boards. The industry would react immediately to that. Unless the industry volunteers to set up its own marketing boards, it does not lie with the Government to force it to do so.
A lot of rubbish is talked about the flooding of the market being due to imports. I know of two instances last year, one of which concerned lettuces. When the suspension of the open general

licence took place, no lettuces were being imported into this country, and the price fell to 3d. in the shops. A greengrocer said to me, "When lettuces were about a bob each I could sell as many as I could get, but now they have fallen to 3d. nobody wants them." We cannot compete with the psychology of the buying public. When lettuces were not being imported a lot of growers had to plough them back into the ground. Lettuces are a gamble. If it comes off, the profit is high; if not they go down with a bang.
Finally, with regard to capital, I hope that we may be able to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade the banks to help the smaller grower with facilities, because at the moment all the banks are not co-operating with the smaller grower as they might do.

8.16 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: We have to welcome the tone of today's debate. On both sides the points of view have been expressed in a way which has added to the helpfulness of the debate, and we have not engendered the heat which I gather was usually engendered when tariffs and free trade were argued in the old days. We have got very much away from that because we have decided that this is a world in which the issue of free trade is not immediately practicable.

Mr. James Hudson: Who told you that?

Mr. Champion: The whole world has decided it. Attempts have been made through G.A.T.T. and so on to produce a free trade world and have failed. Desirable though it may be, we have to live in the world as it exists and not as we would have it be.
That brings me to this Order that is now before us. It might have the effect of increasing the prices of things which are essential to us all, and it is not a decision that is easy to take. Nobody can take this sort of decision easily. For my own party, I can say that we naturally feel closer to the poorest people in the population and, because of that, find it much more difficult than hon. Gentlemen opposite to take this decision.
Nevertheless, when we were in power we set out to achieve a stable and reasonably prosperous agriculture. We tried to


insulate and to some extent isolate this industry from the worst effects of the varying world food trade conditions. We went a long way to achieve that, with the largest part of its farming industry, but we never achieved completely what we set out to do, which was to provide something similar for the horticultural industry. We did our best with the tools that seemed immediately available at the time, but no one can pretend that what was achieved carried out in its entirety the pledge that was given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when he spoke on the Second Reading of the 1947 Act.
I think, too, that in this connection it is right to remind the House that the horticultural industry was not getting any real benefit under the 1947 Act but was, nevertheless, subject to all the conditions contained in Part II of that Act. It is subject to that Part which imposes upon it the necessity for a reasonable degree of efficiency in its production, and, of course, to the penalties that might flow from failure to produce reasonable efficiency in running its holdings and undertakings.
I cannot help thinking that in producing this Measure to us the President of the Board of Trade ought to have given us some figures that would have told us something about this industry's position. It is not good enough that we should have had to rely on statements such as that which we had from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) and others who have said that this section of the farming industry is by no means as prosperous as is the general farming industry, that this industry has gone down since 1947, and has been gradually declining over the whole of that period. I think one of the hon. Members opposite who referred to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) was a little less than fair to him, because my hon. Friend said the prosperity of which he was talking ended about 1947 or 1948, and that from that period onwards the glass industry of which he was talking then certainly began to feel the effect of increased costs and decreased returns on the product.

Mr. Godber: I did not want to be unfair to the hon. Gentleman, but when I

challenged him he said that in the 10 years from 1941 to 1951 it had been making fabulous profits. That was wrong, in my submission.

Mr. Champion: I can only say I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I certainly understood him to say that there was a long period when fabulous profits were being made but that that had ended, and I thought he said that the decline began round about 1948. I am bound to accept the only figures that are available to me, produced by the National Farmers' Union. They may be suspect in some ways, but they do represent trends, and I accept them in that way. Their figures show that there has been a steady decline in the profitability of this industry from 1947 or 1948 down to this minute.
However, it is not good enough that we in this House should have to accept these things on that sort of statement. I believe that the President of the Board of Trade should have armed himself with figures with which the statistical departments of his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture should have provided him. We should then have been in a better position to judge of the necessity of the increase in these tariffs. If he has any figures I hope he will give them to us when he replies to the debate.
I am bound to support my hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North in his protest about the way in which the paper explaining this Order was prepared. It certainly is not an easy thing to read. If one reads it straight across one finds that in some cases it does appear as though the tariff has been quadrupled instead of doubled. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will remember this when he presents, as, perhaps, he may have to do, some other paper explaining what he is doing or is about to do.
I am going to be brief for obvious reasons. There is so much one could say about this, but I am not, because of the tone of this debate, going to stress unduly some of the points that might have been made. I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) in this, that we ought to have had at the same time as we were presented with these tariff proposals some information about what the industry itself is doing to put itself in order, or,


alternatively, of what the Government propose to do to encourage it to put itself in order.
There has been much said about this, and I think it is right that we should stress that we think that it is entirely wrong that these tariffs should operate, as, perhaps, they may do, not to the benefit of the producer but of the middlemen, the commission agents, and so on. It does seem to me that therein lies a danger, that we may be raising these tariffs and helping thereby to give the horticulturists the benefit of them but much more to those who come between the producers and the consumers. That is very important.
I hope, too, with everyone who has spoken, that the industry itself will do something to improve the marketing of its products. It is true there has been some little improvement, but I still feel that with some of the products is sold the soil in which the products themselves were grown. I feel that sometimes when my wife brings things home—not only from the Co-op, of course, but other places. She brings home not merely the product but also the soil in which it is grown. That really is not good enough. The industry ought to get down to this job of improvement in marketing.
If it will not, for the sake of the country I rather think we shall have to do what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper said. If the industry will not put itself in order then we shall have to help it to do it by action at this level. We do not want to do it. It would be infinitely better if it did it itself—infinitely better; but if it will not, we, or the Government—and it may fall to us to do it—will have to do something more about this business of trying to give this country the sort of marketing of its products it ought to have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch) was right to stress that prosperity in the horticultural industry is of vital importance to the workers in the industry. This is one of the industries in which there is a large amount of labour going into the eventual product, and for that reason it is absolutely vital that we should have at least a reasonable degree of prosperity in it, to enable us not only to retain the wage of the workers in the industry at 120s.

a week, which my hon. Friend mentioned, but, if possible, to improve on that.
This industry, like the rest of the farming industry, cannot hope to go on doing the things we want it to do unless it can retain more people on the land instead of letting them go, as has been the case for quite a few years. I repeat what I said at the outset. The decision to make these Orders was not an easy one, but, on balance, we think that they should be supported, and I am sure they will be supported by hon. Members on this side of the House.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I have to thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) and other hon. Members for the balanced and objective way in which they have approached this important subject. The Government can claim that, with one or two exceptions, there has been a very large measure of agreement in the House. This tariff issue has not raised as much heat as it would have done if it had been debated in this House 50 years ago. We have now formed the view that tariffs and quotas cannot be regarded in terms of complete black and white. We have to look at each case upon its merits and see what it is possible to do.
In replying to this debate, I think that I should do what I promised to do in opening—to run through the main points made by hon. Members and do my best to answer them. The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) supported the Orders, but asked why I was to wind up the debate as well as open it. The reason emerges from the debate we have had. There are so many questions that may be asked, and they are not all agricultural questions, although I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East that the background must always be the efficiency of the agricultural and horticultural industry.

Mr. Champion: I interrupt only to say that the Minister will understand the reason my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) is not here to hear his reply.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The right hon. Member for Belper told me that he was unable to be here, and I fully appreciate that point. He also asked what consultation had taken place. I want to make


it absolutely clear that by "consultation" I do not mean merely that a few letters were written. Eighteen organisations were invited to come along after they had submitted their representations, and full discussion took place with regard to these matters. It cannot be made too clear that, whatever views may be held about the rightness or wrongness of individual tariff decisions, in this case there was the fullest consultation throughout, in the fullest meaning of that term. It is worth while recording that fact.
The right hon. Member also asked—and, I think, rightly—how flexible the tariff was. I want to make it quite plain that when we are dealing with imports by means of tariffs we are dealing with them on an average year assessed over a long period. In point of fact, in the consideration which we gave to this matter, we were examining crop returns from as long ago as 1934 in order to find out what was the average period over which the main crop came on to the United Kingdom market.
If we have a tariff system like this, in some years it will work to the advantage of the producer and in some years it will operate to the advantage of the consumer. We must, to that extent, take the rough with the smooth, and work it out upon an average basis. I agree that neither a tariff nor a quota will prevent all gluts from taking place. With certain seasonal conditions it is probable that we shall have gluts on account of the rate of production at home, and no method of import control will alter that.
I also agree with the point which the right hon. Member for Belper and many other hon. Members rightly made, that tariffs are not the final solution to all the problems of the horticultural industry, but we hope that this tariff will create conditions of reasonable stability in which the horticultural industry can take the necessary measures to help itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) took a more classically Liberal line than other hon. Members. He said that these Orders must increase the cost of living. He described them as an attempt by the Ministry of Agriculture to exploit the consumers for the benefit of the producers. They will do nothing of the kind. This is a Government decision, in which

the Board of Trade takes principal responsibility. It is a balanced decision, taking into account the interests of the producers, importers, distributors and consumers. We considered, weighing these various interests and looking at the facts of the situation, that some moderate increases were justified in these cases.
On the question of the effect on the consumer, may I say to him and to others who have raised it that, of course, the exclusion of goods by quota is just as likely to put up prices as a moderate tariff, and in many ways this can be regarded, as one of my hon. Friends said, as a Liberal Measure in the sense that these physical quotas are removed at the same time as the tariffs are increased. We had a rather Liberal interlude in the debate if I remember rightly, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) seemed to be rather closely associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington. He said that this Order would check the lowering of foodstuff prices. I think that in certain conditions that was a perfectly fair point to take. In a period of glut, when imports may be flooding in, it would check to some extent the rapid lowering of prices, which could have such a ruinous effect upon producers of certain types of horticultural produce.
Again, I would say to him that I hope that hon. Members will remember that the quota can have just as savage an effect on consumers in this country as any tariff that has ever been used. I remember some time ago using quota restrictions for the purpose of steadying the import of carrots, and I met with a great deal of criticism from both sides of the House on that occasion because prices were forced up unexpectedly against the consumer.
The hon. Member also raised the question of the effect on international trade. He thought that producers in other countries would regard all this rather badly. But surely we in this country are entitled to move our unbound tariffs. Why should we be put into an isolated position unlike any other country in the world? When we have a tariff to which we are not committed in any international agreement or in respect of which there is not any other commitment whatever, surely we must be free to move that tariff after full and proper inquiry, because if we


did not we should be in a lonely position. Do not imagine that other countries with unbound tariffs are satisfied never to move them in any circumstances whatsoever.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)made a reasoned case for this horticultural tariff. He made, if I may say so, what I think was a very powerful point when he said that horticulture is in a different position from the rest of the agricultural industry in this respect. Although in many respects it has to accept all the same risks as the rest of agriculture, for various technical reasons it is not possible to extend to it the same kind of support as is extended over a large part of the agricultural industry. He made the point, which was taken up in an able speech by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Gooch), who speaks with great knowledge on these matters, that we have to do all that we can inside the industry, and that the industry has to do all that it can, to raise the efficiency of the average somewhere rather nearer to the best within the industry.
As the hon. Member for Norfolk, North said, this is an industry which is certainly worth preserving. It should have reasonable protection against the flow of imports in certain circumstances, but when all that has been done and all that has been provided for, it still rests with the industry itself to do its very best to reach the highest level of efficiency.
My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) represents a constituency noted for the quality of its agricultural produce, and he took the point which I think we should always bear in mind in these discussions on tariffs—that they do not affect just the profits of employers but they affect the 150,000 men who work in the horticultural industry.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) found almost an ally in my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, who sits behind him. He explained forcibly the virtues of G.A.T.T. and a high level of world trade. I do not want to enter into all that now, but this Order is certainly not a breach of G.A.T.T. All that we are doing is entirely consistent with the General Agreement. Indeed, I took some trouble to see that it was, because I went to Geneva and

obtained a certain necessary adjustment in the rules in order that these Orders could be put forward.
The hon. Member for East Ham, North called me a Tory high protectionist, and as I am sometimes called a Liberal I hope that the two will balance out fairly reasonably together and show that I am producing an objective judgment on these matters. The hon. Member raised the question of tomatoes. What we have done is to raise the duty from 2d. to 4d. per lb. during the month of May on those tomatoes which are priced over 1s. 3d. per lb. The object of this, which the hon. Member did not mention and might not have observed, is to give protection to the high priced salad tomato which is on offer from the United Kingdom growers at that time but to leave free from additional duty the lower priced culinary tomatoes coming from the Canary Islands. That shows a sensible respect for the point of view of the consumer, and on the lower priced tomatoes it reduces by 15 days the period of protection. I think that that is a very good example of the care with which we have examined these things.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) raised the question of fruit pulp. I agree that the tables, whether one looks at the Order or the White Paper, may not be easy to understand, but what has happened is really quite simple. The duties on a whole range of rather complex items have been levelled up or down to 15 per cent. ad valorem. My hon. and gallant Friend asked particularly about raspberry pulp, which from his constituency point of view was a proper question to ask. The duty on raspberry pulp imports is increased from 15 per cent. or 9s. per cwt., whichever is the less, to 15 per cent. ad valorem. That represents some advantage for raspberry pulp; indeed, it is what was asked for.

Mr. Beswick: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of tomatoes, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and said that the increase is from 2d. to 4d. per lb. for one month only, and then only when the price exceeds 1s. 3d. I find the White Paper difficult to follow, but it refers also to an increase from 1st June to 31st August. Is that not so?

Mr. Thorneycroft: That is quite right. I was dealing with the point which was


raised specifically relating to the month of May. The hon. Member is right. In the other period, which was subject to duty before, there is an increase from 2d. to 4d. per lb. The incidence of this tariff today on tomatoes—I mean per valuation, taking the difference in prices—is less than it was in the pre-war duty. That is worth bearing in mind because people think that an increase of from 2d. to 4d. means an increase of 100 per cent., but it does not work out that way because the price per lb. has altered in the meantime.
My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), in an interesting speech, which I apologise for missing, asked about what would happen with the tariff on apples, flowers and nursery stock. All I can say now is that it is at present under consideration. It would be wrong for me to start to state possible dates and the rest; but, subject to the very thorough investigation, which I think everybody would agree must be given to any tariff application, it is being pressed on with as speedily as we can.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, in a speech which was a balanced assessment on this particular problem, said that we could not have complete free trade, and that we had to look at these things in an objective way. He repeated the point—which I think is quite right—that the horticultural industry has not had all the benefits which, under the Agriculture Act, 1947, were extended to other sections of the Agricultural industry.
He said that he wished I could have produced more figures on this matter. I would naturally be pleased to give the hon. Gentleman any figures that I have, but I could not go through the list of these items and describe the incidence of the new tariffs compared with the incidence before the war. It is very difficult to read out a list as long as that, and I think it would be better if I summarised the position.
I have looked at them closely, and if hon. Members go through the items they will find that the general position is that the incidence of duty over the whole field is rather less than it was before the war. If that is so, I do not think—and we all share in this decision—there can be any

accusation that we have suddenly swung over to a high protective system.

Mr. Champion: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, I should explain that I was thinking more about the figures of the profit of the industry at the present time and indicating its prosperity. What I understood was that there had been a downward trend in profitability since 1948, and I was wondering if the figures bore that out.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not think I could, because there is such a variation between individual items that it would be extraordinarily difficult to give the average position, but what I can do is give the tariff level. It is far more awkward to give average profitability, but I think one can say that there is no doubt that the horticultural industry, on the National Farmers' Unions' application, made a really unanswerable case that some duties should properly be applied to its products. I do not think that one can assess that case wholly in terms of profitability on an average for each type of commodity. It is one of the factors that we have to go into.
That leads me to what I want to say finally on this matter. We have looked at the case as objectively as we can, and I have tried to answer as many points as I could in this debate. We have had a very thorough examination, which has taken a long time. There has been criticism about how long it took. I think it much better to take a long time on tariff applications, get the thing thoroughly done and see that everybody who ought to be consulted is fully consulted. Experience shows that individual applications can be made either by the producers or by anybody else, but in general the object of tariff changes is to have a stable tariff and have it over a long period.
Substantially over this field the National Farmers' Unions have got what they asked for, though they have not got everything. It is not the final answer, but the horticultural industry, having got that measure of stability behind it, has got to make the best of it. It has got to see that behind that moderate protection efficiency is improved by every means open to it, and do its best to provide the housewives of this country with the commodity they want at the price and quality which they desire.

Mr. George Jeger: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he say a word or two on the question of the encouragement which the Government were supposed to be giving to the small growers to develop grading and co-operative buying and selling organisations? Or is he leaving it entirely to the growers themselves?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): Order. I do not think that arises on the Order.

Mr. Jeger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It came into the speech of the Minister and even into his peroration.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think it arises on the Order itself.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1736), dated 27th November, 1953, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th November, be approved.

Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1760), dated 4th December, 1953 [copy presented 7th December] approved.—[Mr. P. Thorneycroft.]

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Bude-Stratton [copy presented 8th December] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Cromer [copy presented 8th December] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Darton [copy presented 8th December] approved.—[Sir H. Lucas-Tooth.]

ATOMIC ENERGY (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

8.52 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Transfer of Functions (Atomic Energy and Radioactive Substances) Order, 1953 (S.I., 1953, No. 1673), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be annulled.
This Order is the first step in transferring the control of British atomic energy development from the Ministry of Supply to a corporation. We have been told by the Government that the purpose of this Order is to make the Lord President of the Council responsible to Parliament for the activities of that corporation—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but, on a point of order, may we have your guidance at the outset of this debate on what is likely to be a most difficult and technical matter that arises? Do we interpret the purpose of this Order correctly as being only on the narrow issue of transferring function from one Minister to another? If that is correct, could you guide us as to whether it will be in order at any stage in the debate to discuss the merits or demerits of the creation of a corporation or, in fact, any other facet of the many recommendations contained in the recent Government White Paper following the recommendations of the Waverley Committee, or only the narrow issue of transfer of function?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): All this Order does is to transfer function from one Department to another, and that is the narrow issue which arises. As I understand it, this is a preparatory Order for setting up a board of a corporation, and for that purpose legislation will be necessary. Therefore, that would be debated at that time. One cannot anticipate on this debate any question that arises for legislation. A passing reference to the board might be in order, but to debate it at length upon this Order would be out of order.

Mr. Strauss: On that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I understand, after


discussing the matter with Mr. Speaker, that while it would obviously be out of order to discuss in any detail the Corporation which is to be set up, since we know that the purpose of transferring these functions to the Lord President of the Council is to put him in charge of the Corporation described in the White Paper, it would be in order to refer broadly to that Corporation and the duties which it will have to carry out. With your permission, therefore, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I propose to proceed along those lines.
Let me say at the very outset that we on this side of the House have no objection in principle to a corporation outside the Government machine administering any important public enterprise wherever that is appropriate. Indeed, we thought that this was the proper instrument for commercial undertakings such as coal and steel. We think, however, that the proposed Corporation set-up envisaged in the Government White Paper is inappropriate for our atomic energy project, certainly in its present stage of development.
We move this Prayer against this Order therefore, not because it contains any unsound principle, but because we believe that it will create an administrative mess that will retard rather than advance atomic energy development in this country. And we strongly object to the proposal that this House is to be deprived of a Minister responsible for, or indeed associated with, this revolutionary scientific development on which the prosperity of this country for years to come may well depend.
It is clear from the White Paper that what probably more than anything else has moved the Government to take this step is a belief—one may call it a prejudice—that any project progresses better the further away it is from the Government machine; if possible hand it over to businessmen, but if that is not possible, as it obviously is not in this case, then put it in the hands of a halfway organisation such as a Corporation.
What the White Paper says, and this is really the heart of the Government's case, is that the atomic energy enterprise needs
imagination and drive

and calls for
flexibility and for rapidity of decision.
I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. For that purpose we are told that there should be
…a form of control of the project which is more akin to the structure of a big industrial organisation….
The White Paper then goes on to propose a form of organisation which I submit to the House has no similarity whatsoever to any industrial organisation, past or present, and which in our view combines the worst of both worlds.
First, the House should ask itself, before passing this Order, what evidence there is that as a department of the Ministry of Supply the atomic energy organisation has lacked imagination or drive or flexibility. I maintain on the contrary, and I do not think that I am personally prejudiced in this matter, that the progress of this atomic energy project under the Ministry of Supply has been exceedingly successful and that in fact it possesses at every stage flexibility, energy and drive. Indeed, only on occasions when those able people who are in charge of the atomic energy department of the Ministry have been prevented by deliberate Government policy from doing what they want has there been any curb whatsoever on their activities.
In the new scheme of things, just as in the old, the Government will have to interfere on all matters of importance over exactly the same range of subjects as in the past, when these matters were under the control of the Ministry of Supply. Moreover, the people who will be administratively responsible in future for the progress and the development of atomic energy will be exactly the same people as those who were responsible for it under the Ministry of Supply. The only difference is that Sir Edwin Plowden is to be chairman. He is a man who is held in the highest regard by everyone who knows his work, but to get his services as chairman does not seem a good reason for making these damaging changes in the whole set-up of the atomic energy organisation. The question whether the present arrangements are good or not depends for its answer on whether the advances made in atomic energy development have so far been satisfactory, or whether there is any


indication that those advances are likely to be retarded if the present arrangement continues.
No one can say whether we might have advanced faster had we had a different set-up. The Minister of Supply has had great knowledge of these affairs, especially during the last two years, and I doubt whether he would contradict me when I say—and I think everyone who knows anything about the matter will agree—that progress both in the civil and military field, taking into account the limited resources available, has been little short of miraculous. I express my personal belief that, except for the mass production of atomic weapons, but certainly in research and development, we are well up to and in many respects ahead of the Americans today.
Whether this is true or not, certainly no evidence can be brought forward based on past experience to suggest that there is anything wrong or retarding in the present atomic energy set up. On the contrary, if we are to base our policy on the evidence which is available, we should say that it should stay, at any rate for the time being, as it is.
The main reason for the success of our atomic energy enterprise so far has, of course, been the brilliance of the scientists, engineers and planners who have been the leaders of that enterprise. But there has been a secondary cause. That has been the immense experience in conducting successful research and development possessed by the Ministry of Supply organisation and its intimate relationship with all branches of the engineering industry. There is no doubt that the atomic energy project has benefited immensely from this in the past, and particularly by the highly developed expertise in advancing research and development both in its own establishments and in co-operation in industry. It is this expertise which is largely responsible for Britain's pre-eminent position in production of new aircraft. I am sure that most aircraft manufacturers will agree that that is so.
Moreover, the Ministry of Supply, because it has under its authority immense resources in scientific staff and scientific establishments, is able to deploy those resources from time to time where they can render the best service. A considerable amount of atomic energy research is, for example, at present carried out in

Ministry of Supply research establishments which, primarily, are used for other purposes. However attractive it may seem, therefore, to those who are not fully cognisant of the present set-up, to wrench the atomic energy organisation away from the Ministry of Supply—I am speaking without any political prejudice in this matter, because all I want to see is the best form of development in this enterprise—would in my opinion weaken rather than strengthen the development of that project in the future.
It is further erroneous to suggest, as I think is implied in the White Paper, that the proposed set-up under the Lord President of the Council would be better able to deal with industrial matters. The Ministry of Supply is largely an industrial organisation. Its staff know every engineering works of importance in the country. Its managers are efficient—

Mr. Richard Fort: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could you give a ruling as to whether, now that the right hon. Member is branching out into the organisation of the Lord President of the Council, we shall be able to answer the points he is making in that connection?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I have already dealt with this point at the beginning of the debate. As I understand him, the right hon. Member is now saying that the set-up under the Ministry of Supply is the proper instrument to deal with the position. That clearly is in order. The right hon. Gentleman has not yet reached the border originally set. The change in the set-up cannot be discussed in detail, but it can be referred to.

Mr. Fort: I was drawing your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was now turning away from the Ministry of Supply to the new set-up.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has not got that far.

Mr. Strauss: I was arguing the advantages derived by the atomic energy enterprise through its association with the Ministry of Supply. The purpose of this Order is to remove that association.
I was saying that its staff knows intimately every large engineering firm in the country, its personnel and its capacity to carry out contracts. Last


year, according to the information given to me by the Minister of Supply in answer to a Question the other day, about 250,000 contracts were made by the Ministry of Supply with industry to the value of £630 million and these were spread over 10,000 firms. I do not believe that whatever contracting organisation the proposed Corporation may devise it will be as efficient or as experienced as that now operated on behalf of atomic energy in the Ministry of Supply.
What, then, do we gain by the Government's proposals? The new set-up—the Corporation—will clearly bear no resemblance whatever to an industrial organisation. It will be subject to Government direction as much as ever before in all major matters of policy, and on minor matters or technical points there has never been any Government interference or restrictive red tape. We are told that there will be Treasury control of expenditure and that the accounts of the Corporation will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
Government control, however, under the new arrangements will, I suggest, be more complex and far more cumbersome than before for now we shall have three Ministers with a finger in the pie. The Lord President of the Council will exercise general supervision, the Minister of Supply will be responsible for the com ponents of atomic weapons and will place contracts with the Corporation for research in relation to Service requirements. The Minister of Defence comes into it. He will be responsible for saying how much of the resources allocated for defence will be used for research, development in or the production of atomic weapons.
How the atomic energy enterprise can rationally be divided in this way, and the responsibilities parcelled out as suggested, I do not know. The ingenuity of the Civil Service is such that I am sure it will somehow make it work but I amalso sure that the Civil Service will do so under serious and unnecessary handicaps.
I would ask the House to bear in mind that all the major problems likely to be associated with this enterprise are Governmental ones, apart from the obviously technical ones which will be

dealt with by the scientists and technicians in the ordinary way. There will be problems of capital expenditure, defence, location, security and foreign relations. All these matters will be dealt with by Ministers. For that reason, among others, I think it would be far simpler and more appropriate if the whole show were under Government control.
I wish to say a word about salaries. We are told that one purpose of this change is to make it possible for the Corporation to pay to a few selected people salaries in excess of those now being paid to those engaged in the atomic energy organisation. I suggest that this may lead to a lot of trouble. Arrangements were made by the last Government. I think in 1949 and 1950, when the atomic energy set-up was under the Ministry of Supply, to ensure that where special circumstances existed the Treasury would agree to an exceptional salary being paid. Since that arrangement was in operation until at least the time when I left the Ministry no one was lost to the atomic energy organisation whom it was desired to engage.
If we go any further—and it is suggested that as a result of this change it will be possible to go further in paying higher salaries to a selected number of people—we may well upset the whole salary scale of the senior technical scientific staff employed by the Government. Other leading scientists in Government employ will not accept the condition that they should receive less remuneration than their colleagues in a Government corporation whose salaries are paid by governmental grant in aid, and those who work—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not clear to me how the question of salaries arises on this Order.

Mr. Strauss: One of the purposes of taking the whole enterprise out of a Government Department, the Ministry of Supply, and placing it in the hands of the Lord President of the Council, who will establish a corporation is that those engaged in atomic energy work will receive higher salaries. That is one of the main purposes.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That may be one of the purposes, I do not know. But it is not effected by this Order.

Mr. Strauss: I do not want to press the point, though I think that it is not only one of the consequences of this Order, but one of the main purposes. I must sound a warning that if we take those people now working in atomic energy outside the normal range of Civil Service pay and conditions we shall create a serious situation in other Government scientific establishments; in D.S.I.R. in the Medical Research Council, and among aircraft and radar workers. We may, and I think we shall, cause disgruntlement among a lot of people whose services to the Government and the nation are all important.
I think it constitutionally unwise to place the Lord President of the Council—who is able to render special service to the Government because he has no Departmental responsibilities—in a position where he would have considerable Departmental responsibilities, as will happen under this Order. Such responsibilities would give him a stake in a large number of matters which have to be considered by the Cabinet. On constitutional grounds, it is far better to leave him clear of such responsibilities so that if there be disputes between Ministers he can be an unprejudiced arbitrator.
There are many other points which I should like to raise, but it will be more appropriate to discuss them when the Bill setting up the new Corporation comes before the House. But perhaps even at this stage whoever is to speak for the Government—I take it that it will be the Minister of Works—might comment on what is, to me, a strange and an alarming reference in the White Paper regarding one change likely to result from this Order. It is stated in paragraph 19 that in future security is to be the responsibility primarily of the Corporation and not of the Government. That seems to me to be an exceedingly dangerous suggestion.
My last complaint about this Order is one to which hon. Members on this side of the House attach very great importance. It is that in future this House will have to rely on the Minister of Works for information on all atomic energy matters. Whatever qualifications the right hon. Gentleman may have in other directions, he cannot in the nature of things have any knowledge about this subject,

for he will have no association whatsoever with the Corporation or the Lord President of the Council.
The application of atomic energy to industrial uses is likely to have an exceedingly important impact on the prosperity and welfare of our people over a constantly widening field, and we protest vehemently that the Commons should be debarred from contact with the Minister who will be directly responsible for this development; and that will be the immediate consequence of the passing of the Order.
For that reason, and because it seems to us that the Corporation will enjoy neither the advantages of commercial freedom nor the resources of an experienced Government Department, we say that this proposal is ill-conceived and ill-timed, and in moving the Prayer we ask the Government to think again.

9.16 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) had four main grounds for rejecting the Order. The first ground was habit. He said that the Ministry of Supply had long experience in atomic energy matters, and he sought to portray the idea that a vast organisation would be left behind and all the new projects would be forced upon a Ministry which had no experience what ever. He contradicted himself in the course of his speech by admitting that the civil servants would accommodate them selves to the arrangements which were made. He meant that the appropriate sections of the Ministry of Supply would simply be transferred to the aegis of the Lord President of the Council. So the right hon. Gentleman is no better off on that one.
His second ground was security. Paragraph 19 of Appendix I of the White Paper says:
Security should be primarily the responsibility of the Corporation; but it should be recognised that the designated Minister may from time to time, or as occasion may require, satisfy himself as to the working of the security arrangements.
As the designated Minister is the Lord President of the Council, a Minister in the Cabinet, whereas the Minister of Supply is not in the Cabinet, I should have thought that security would have been even more secure in future.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman said that Order was transferring new powers to the Lord President of the Council, and he suggested that the Lord President had no experience of these matters. For many years past, perhaps a quarter of a century, the Lord President of the Council has presided over the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, which is now a very elaborate organisation, as the right hon. Gentleman ought to know very well. The National Physical Laboratory at Teddington and ancillary establishments all over the country employ hundreds, if not thousands, of persons, and cost a great deal of money. It is not a very great effort of administrative technique and competence to transfer the sections of the Civil Service dealing with atomic energy to the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: The noble Lord will no doubt agree with me that there is a difference between having responsibility for some research department as in the case of the D.S.I.R. and building up one's own administrative staff at headquarters. It may well be absolutely essential to have a considerable number of staff if the Lord President is to have a Corporation and be responsible for its immense manufacturing, as well as research, activities.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The Lord President will be responsible in an administrative sense, but Sir Edwin Plowden and the Corporation will deal with the techniques and experiments and the sales of atomic energy. The Lord President of the Council will not be charged with excessive duties, and certainly not duties which he cannot perform adequately, having regard to the way in which he now performs his duties in relation to the D.S.I.R.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I happen to have occupied the office of Lord President of the Council. The Lord President has no staff at all in the ordinary sense of a Department. At present he deals with the D.S.I.R. and so forth, but what is envisaged is that he will have a definite Department, a staff, under him, quite apart from the Corporation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Of course, I accept the right hon. Gentleman's very considerable experience in this field. I

only know that, before the war, I had the great honour to serve Mr. Baldwin, as he then was, when he was Lord President of the Council, and I saw something of what went on in his private office. I know that these scientific subjects were brought to him by appropriate civil servants and dealt with by him as faithfully as no doubt they were by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition himself. All I am trying to suggest is that this Order imposes no great elaborate administrative burden—or is not likely to do—upon the Lord President which is in complete disproportion to the burdens he bears already.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall complained about this Order on the grounds of the enormous salaries likely to be paid under the new administration. If we are to hive off from the industry a giant service which the Government has fathered and sponsored, eventually creating something perhaps equal to the enormous technological services performed by the nationalised Corporations—and I say it in that sense—it surely is important that the persons at the head of the Corporation should receive salaries appropriate to those paid to their opposite numbers who occupy positions in the nationalised industries.
We do not know that atomic energy is not going to bear, in 10 or 15 years' time, the sort of relation to our national technological affairs as the National Coal Board bears now, and if it is right to pay a salary of £8,500 to the Chairman of the National Coal Board, surely it is right that we should pay some comparable salaries to the heads of the Atomic Energy Corporation?

Mr. Speaker: I think we should leave the discussion of salaries until we see what is proposed in the Bill setting up the Corporation, because this matter is not dealt with in the Order.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am bound to accept your Ruling, but I was merely seeking to answer very briefly certain points made, while you were absent, Mr. Speaker, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall. I end those comments by saying that, obviously, if this organisation were retained in the Ministry of Supply, as is the burden of the right hon. Gentleman's case, we would be in


for a great deal of trouble in the Civil Service if we did not pay the salaries which are deemed to be requisite.
I recognise that a great many of these matters could be raised more appropriately on the Second Reading of the Bill which is to follow, but I am a little disturbed that there is no reference either in the White Paper or in the Order to the borrowing powers of this Corporation. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall said that the money is to be provided out of sums voted by Parliament, and is to be checked by the Comptroller and Auditor General.
It seems to me that, once we begin to enter the great field of industrial development which this new technique will involve, in order to get into relation with the National Coal Board and the other nationalised industries in the region of fuel and power we must envisage the prospect that this organisation must have borrowing powers; otherwise, we shall get into the position in which the load upon the Estimates will become intolerable and taxation will not be able to satisfy it. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works, who is to reply, will be prepared for an onslaught on this subject on the Second Reading of the Bill. It has an enormous relation to what we are doing in other fields, like roads.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible, perhaps not before the Second Reading of the Bill but during that stage, to arrange through the Parliamentary Scientific Committee or by some other means, as has so often been done on other matters, for hon. and right hon. Members of this House to visit some of these great establishments in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or wherever they are. There have been visits to Harwell Station, and I enjoyed my visit there and learned a very great deal. The House is to be asked to take a tremendous interest in this subject and we all want to do that. Visits therefore would be appropriate, if they could be arranged.
No mention has been made of a very significant factor, which will perhaps arise more appropriately in the foreign affairs debate next week than now, but we should recognise it. The present proposal is a move towards peace and towards pacification, and I am a little surprised that the Labour Party have not

caught this up. It is a move towards international pacification, and is showing the world, as the Americans have shown, that we are taking away from the central Government service and putting one stage more remote from the military authorities the manufacture of this—

Mr. Austen Albu: rose—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a speech, perhaps he will wait a moment, as I am just about to sit down. It surely is of very great significance if we can show to the world that we are not driving forward this great new project under the aegis of the Ministry of Supply and in association with the giant military services of the State. It is appropriate that the military aspect should remain behind it, but it is a message to the world of some importance that this country is prepared to dissociate from the central aegis of the State some of the peace-time purposes and projects of atomic energy.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Frank Anderson: I take part in this debate because my Parliamentary division is very much involved in the transfer of these functions from the Ministry of Supply to the Lord President of the Council. It will be well known, I think, that a large atomic energy project is proposed within the Whitehaven Parliamentary division. I am not quite sure which of the projects is to be transferred to the Lord President of the Council. They are not set out in the White Paper, except in a general way. If I put one or two questions, perhaps they can be replied to at a later stage.
In the Whitehaven division we have the commencement of the building of an electricity undertaking. Is it to be transferred to the Lord President of the Council? In addition, at Seascale, a large number of houses are being built specifically on behalf of the Ministry of Supply, and the houses are occupied under special terms of contract by scientists, technicians and others. There has been a special allocation of houses through the Whitehaven Corporation for industrial workers classed as "key" workers, and allocated to employees of the Ministry of Supply.
Is it the intention to transfer those houses at Seascale to the Lord President of the Council? I think it is only fair that we should know whether those


houses and undertakings are to be transferred to the Lord President of the Council. I want to support what my right hon. Friend has said about the transfer of the general atomic energy projects to the Lord President of the Council. I believe that this is the beginning of the industrialisation of atomic energy. It appears to introduce the profit motive.
In particular, my right hon. Friend spoke about security. When these undertakings are transferred to the Lord President of the Council, can we be assured that the security measures will not be tampered with that are in operation for this huge undertaking in my Parliamentary division? It will be known to the Minister, no doubt, for I know he has been there, that for a long time there have been scientific ships out in the ocean dealing with effluent and so on so far as radio activity is concerned. Is there anything to prevent the Lord President of the Council from saying that has got to be dropped prior to the introduction of the Bill for the setting up of the Corporation? Are we to stand still when these transfers are made so far as safety regulations are concerned? Will he continue what has been done previously by the Minister of Supply?
People in our district are very concerned about the effects of the radio activity establishment upon the inhabitants of the area and the farmers in particular. There was a great feeling at one time of the day, and they had to be reassured that there would be no ill effects from radio activity, and I am a little worried as to whether the Lord President of the Council will exercise the same safety measures and security measures as have been operated by the Minister of Supply. I think it is only fair to ask that there should be no tampering at all in this transfer with those security and safety measures that have been taken so diligently by the Minister of Supply.
I want to say a word upon the position of the people who are to be transferred to the control of the Lord President of the Council. There are scientists, there are technicians, there are established employees and unestablished employees. I should like to know what the position of those people is to be who are transferred to the Lord President of the Council. Are they going to enjoy the same

advantages and security of tenure as they are enjoying under the auspices of the Minister of Supply? I think it is fair to ask that question, because there is quite a number of the employees, at least at Windscale, who are feeling concerned about how far their position will be secure under the transfer arrangements. The Minister ought to say whether they can feel that their conditions will not be worsened as a result of this transfer to the Lord President of the Council.
The Order will be operative from 1st January, 1954. What is to happen to people who come into the employ of the Lord President on and after that date? Will they enjoy the same conditions of employment as they do today? That is what is worrying some of the people in the area. I feel that this is a retrograde step, and that the work which the Ministry of Supply has done in development will be retarded as a result of this transfer, which has as its ultimate object the establishment of a corporation.
The White Paper refers to capital projects, and so on. Are we to understand that, before the Bill is brought in to establish the corporation, the Lord President will carry on the trading activities which will be allowed when the corporation is established? The White Paper also refers to the ceiling in finance. What will be the position of the Corporation before the Bill becomes law? I ask these questions because this is a serious matter for my constituents, especially with regard to the security of tenure of the employees, the scientists, technicians and others within the Whitehaven Parliamentary division.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: I should have thought that some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) had been clearly answered in paragraph 2 of the draft Statutory Instrument, which definitely lays on the Lord President of the Council the functions of the Ministry of Supply as defined in two Acts, and, as though to emphasise the fact, continues, in sub-paragraph (2), as follows:
With the said functions there are also hereby transferred to the Lord President of the Council…the rights and liabilities enjoyed by, or incumbent on, the Minister of Supply in connection with those functions.
No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will reply to the details, but in broad prin-


ciple the White Paper answered at least some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven, in particular the important ones in connection with safety. I cannot imagine that in any circumstances, anywhere in the world, those who are responsible for dealing with this new technique would dare to take any risks with some of the most poisonous substances known to man.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) described, in part fairly but in part ignoring some very important factors, the progress of the Ministry of Supply during the past few years. He rightly said that the Ministry of Supply employed men working on atomic energy—men of world-wide repute, like Sir William Penny, Sir John Cockcroft, Sir Christopher Hinton and others—in the different engineering and chemical plants.
Even with such a splendid staff as that, and even allowing for the fact that we have had our difficulties with regard to capital expenditure, the Russians, who started on this technique several years after we did, managed to detonate their first atomic bomb considerably before we were able to. If I remember rightly it was somewhere about two years ago. That means that, despite all the splendid team of higher executives, with the support of the Ministry of Supply, one of the most backward technical countries in the world was able to collect enough fissile material much quicker than we could. I think that is one of the most important facts to show that this type of organisation is very ill-suited to carry on what is increasingly an industrial operation.

Mr. Attlee: Can the hon. Member tell us, as he seems to know so much about it, what is the organisation in Russia?

Mr. Fort: The right hon. Gentleman has had access to more information on the matter than I have.

Mr. Attlee: If they have got ahead because they had some different organisation to ours, do we know if they run it as a government department or a corporation or what? I do not, but the hon Member seems to know.

Mr. Fort: I am in the same state of ignorance as the right hon. Gentleman. The fact remains that whatever organisation they use, it produced important

results quicker than the organisation we have.

Mr. F. Beswick: How does the hon. Member know that they did not start some years before the Atomic Energy Act of 1946?

Mr. Fort: I am afraid that I missed the point of that intervention. If the Russians did not start then the period is even shorter than the hon. Gentleman says. Another matter to which one is bound to refer is that one of the most eminent airmen who has served our country, Lord Portal, was appointed to be in charge of atomic energy work in this country, and for reasons which I have never heard explained to this House or elsewhere, but it was certainly not health reasons, he found it necessary to resign, presumably because he did not approve of the way in which the Ministry of Supply organisation was carrying on in this vital field.
Whatever may have been true about the original set-up under the Ministry of Supply in 1946, the argument is, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that times have changed. At the time it was brought under the Ministry of Supply, the primary use was for military purposes. In his speech, he made the point about it being impossible to disentangle the military use of atomic energy from its industrial use. That might have been true after the war when the present arrangements were made, but it is certainly not true now.
One has only to see in yesterday's Electricity supplement to "The Times" an article by Sir John Cockroft discussing, with a fair amount of technical detail, the economics of power production from nuclear fission to see how much knowledge has been gained in the last seven years. It must be common property for so much detail to be published in the Press. Similarly, when there have been scientific gatherings, information has been given out about the uses and certainly not military uses which show the progress which has been made in the industrial field. It is a little strange to hear the argument that an organisation which originally was built up under quite different circumstances and which despite the eminence of the people working in it, was slow to produce results, even in the military field, for which it was primarily designed, is now the right organisation,


for what are entirely different circumstances.
It is noteworthy that not only in this country are we contemplating this type of change, but that in the United States, where the Americans have been able to put so much more drive into it, the Atomic Energy Commission only this summer went to ask the United States Congress to allow more information to go out to those who were prepared to use it for industrial purposes. To come and argue that what was agreed six years ago by all parties is still the best possible arrangement, is simply flying in the face of the facts that we have before us.
The White Paper, which is the first step in making the alteration to meet the new circumstances, merely sets about transferring from a Department, which, I am quite certain, could not undertake the work in these new circumstances, to a Cabinet Minister with general supervision in these matters, with the intention of putting before the House a Bill which will set up an organisation very much more like an industrial organisation than anything that is possible under the Ministry of Supply. I hope that for those reasons hon. Gentlemen opposite will not press their Prayer against the Order, but will wait at least until they have the Bill before them and amend the Bill in those details in which they think the new arrangements are defective.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Julian Snow: I am rather surprised at the argument deployed both by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) and by the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), contending, as I understood them, that the tendency in the United States had been to take away responsibility from the central Government and give it to private industry. I should have thought the whole of this debate would be wholly unreal if it were not taken in the context and atmosphere of the recent speech by President Eisenhower. Far from the argument which those two hon. Members have deployed being correct, it seems to me to be the very reverse of the truth.
I am trying desperately hard to keep in order, because I propose to relate this argument to the responsibility to this

House of the Minister of Supply. May I quote what President Eisenhower has said on this point? He proposed that
the Governments principally involved, to the extent permitted by elementary prudence…begin now and continue to make joint contributions from their stockpiles of normal uranium and fissionable materials to an international atomic-energy agency. We would expect that such an agency would be set up under the ægis of the United Nations.
It may well be that there can be a certain amount of decentralisation from a central Government agency. That would be exactly the same procedure as we would wish to maintain under the Ministry of Supply. I think that the whole tendency to detract responsibility from the central Government is one which we must object to and fight as hard as we can.
In this context I wish I could feel confident that the Minister of Supply is wholly in support of this proposal. I should have thought that with his information and knowledge of the possibilities of serving industry and the individual industries concerned, he would have been the very last person to support the Government in this proposal. He must know perfectly well that the whole of the post-war history of the Ministry of Supply has been that not only of an ordering Ministry for individual Ministries, but of a co-ordinating Ministry for all sorts of consumers who are affected by atomic energy production.
We have before us tonight this Order which, in effect, transfers responsibility from this House to somebody in another place. In the field of foreign affairs, we have had a recent unhappy experience of transferring responsibility from this House to another place, and it seems to me that it is only too obvious that if there is a subject of such vast importance as atomic energy production, one would expect any Government, whether Conservative or Labour, to have in this House, answering Questions and attending debates, both a Minister responsible for Foreign Affairs and a Minister responsible for the production and supply of atomic energy in this country.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Is the hon. Gentleman objecting to the present holder of the Office of Lord President of the Council or to the office itself, for there is no need for the holder to be in the House of Lords?

Mr. Snow: I was relating my argument to the office itself, but since I am challenged, may I say that I have no particular confidence in the present holder of the office, though, because of his technical knowledge, he may appear to be a satisfactory holder of that office. His apparent sympathy with profit-making industry does not commend him to me. I might add that I am advancing only my personal opinion here.
I should like to return to my main argument. I am surprised—and I believe that hon. Members on this side of the House share my surprise—that the Minister of Supply should lend himself to this particular proposition, knowing full well that this country appreciates what the Ministry of Supply has done in encouraging production, stimulating enterprise and providing the necessary co-ordinating services.
On this question of the relative position of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Supply, there is some variation of opinion between the two sides of the House but may I opinionate in this way: as I see it, we are here tending more and more towards a Foreign Office problem. We already have in Europe an elementary form of an international atomic energy organisation; and when it is said, as it is said in the Government White Paper, that for many years to come there will be relatively small receipts for this industry, that seems to be an argument in favour of a recognition of international Governmental responsibility. As such, I should have thought that responsibility must remain with a Minister or a combination of Ministers who must be responsible to the House of Commons.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth (Mr. Snow) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) seem to have this point in common. They both like the organisation of a Government Department so well that they believe that one of its functions is evidently to be charged with a responsibility for research and development of probably the most highly scientific matter that has yet been brought before this nation. In fact, I think that that point of view is a misunderstanding of the function of the Ministry of Supply.
During the war years, of course, it might have been desirable that a consideration of this kind was merged into the general responsibility of that Ministry. It might in war-time have been necessary to have a Ministry of Supply for service and supply purposes. I doubt whether today the Ministry of Supply, as such, should have any greater responsibility than the development, production and application of weapons and equipment for the Armed Forces. I do not believe that this responsibility ought to be spread into highly scientific fields where contact is required in a large number of different directions simultaneously.
May I make the simple point that this is not a problem of the application of atomics and atomic physics to weapons and to defence alone, but also surely to the production of industrial power and, what is becoming increasingly evident day by day, for biological purposes as well. I conceive that a rather extraordinary position might develop if the Minister of Supply, responsible for the development of atomic energy, also had to place himself in the position of becoming involved with biological considerations. That is a major issue today. [An Hon. Member: "Penicillin."] I agree that penicillin has drifted into the Ministry of Agriculture today and also in many other directions.
What I want to do with the development of atomic science is to isolate it from any other Government Department. I want to isolate the responsibility for the development of atomics the management and the administration of the large sums of money that will have to be voted for the purpose during the next few years. I want to isolate and segregate that as far as possible away from any other Government Department having characteristic responsibilities of the character that I have described and attributed to the Ministry of Supply.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) accused my hon. Friends and myself of wishing to move responsibility for this important development of the atomic science as far away as possible from central Government. That must be true. Surely we want a devolution, we want this specialised science to be dealt with by a special body, we want a Corporation created with a Minister answerable


in this House. The only better alternative I would know than that, is to have, ultimately, a Ministry to deal with all atomic considerations. That will have to come. It is not envisaged at present.
I do not propose to emulate the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall and make a Second Reading speech which would be more appropriate to a future atomics Bill. Under this Order it is desirable to put this function in the hands of one Minister as a preparatory measure to the creation of a Corporation, and to leave it at that with a view later on to creating a Ministry charged solely with the application of these important functions in three fields: firstly, for weapons and other defence purposes; secondly, for industrial power, and thirdly, for biological considerations.
The other matter which is of equal importance is how we are to get some sort of cohesion in the matter of research within the atomic field. This is not only a question of research by Government physicists, by Government metallurgists, by Government chemists; it must also spread presumably over the research organisations of all the appropriate organisations in industry, and very many large companies which have organisations that can be suited to the atomic science.
The third research body that must surely be called into use must be the large number of physicists, chemists, metallurgists and others who are currently employed in our universities. If one is to get this trinity of effort within the research field—firstly, Government Department; secondly, in industry; and thirdly, in the universities—I would say that it would be disastrous in the long run to leave those complicated functions, and matters mixed up with a Department of an industrial and production character such as the Ministry of Supply, which ought to have in my view the limited function I have described, for the preparation and production of weapons for the Armed Forces.
A good deal of play has been made of the fact that the Lord President of the Council is to be the Minister responsible for atomics. The fact that the Lord President of the Council for the time being sits in another place I submit is

almost irrelevant. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as Lord President of the Council sat in this House. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) sat in this House, and it may well be that in six months, 12 months or two years' time the Lord President of the Council will again sit in this House.
But I have very great confidence in the meantime in the Minister of Works who might add a third wreath of laurels to his Crown, the first being his outstanding success during the Coronation period, the second being the preparation of materials for a record housing programme. I feel confident that the trinity will be completed by a comparable demonstration of capacity in the development of atomic energy and in answering for that important science in this House. I approve of the terms of the Order which is before the House, and I hope that no Division will 'be forced against it, for as an interim measure I am sure that we are taking the right course.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) clearly came here tonight to praise the Minister of Works, and in doing so he has nearly buried the Minister of Supply. Both the hon. Member for Kidderminster and the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) made a very grave attack against the Minister of Supply and against the Ministry. After all, if we have to consider whether the function of the Ministry of Supply is capable of dealing with the serious problem of atomic energy we have merely to look to its performance. The fact is that in 1943. as everyone knows, there was a deliberate Governmental decision, an act of careful policy, that we in Britain should cease to engage in the production of atomic energy and that we should leave it to the United States.
When the war came to an end even then most of our resources and many of our best scientists were otherwise engaged, so that we were late in the atomic race. The fact that we were so successful in producing an atomic explosion and that today in many respects we have outstripped the United States in atomic development is clear proof that during the period when the production and development of atomic energy was


in the hands of the Minister of Supply it was eminently successful, that our scientists deserved well of the country, and that there was nothing wrong in the organisation in the duties which it sought to perform.
Now we find something entirely different. All of a sudden the Government decides that it will rip the vitals out of the atomic energy organisation within the Ministry of Supply and try to reconstitute what they have extracted into the form of some self-supporting atomic organisalion. What comes out very clearly—and here I suggest we try to sift the underlying purpose of this Order—is that the Government have been haunted by the analogy of what is happening in the United States, while at the same time they have been driven along by impulses of big business similar to those which have actuated the United States in the decision that it took in 1946 when the Atomic Energy Commission was set up. As we know, originally the Manhattan Project was a para-military one and, just as this Order intends, it was decided that a Commission should be set up which would have a wide and general directive to develop atomic energy not only for military purposes but for civilian purposes as well.
By way of illustration and analogy, I should like to deal for a few moments with what has happened in the United States'. The fact is that the Atomic Energy Commission, designed originally to be a supervising body for the development of atomic power, had swollen by 1949—the latest year for which figures are available—to an organisation which was employing 5,000 administrators. I am not talking of technicians or of those actually engaged in the production of atomic energy-or power; I am speaking of those actually concerned with the administration of the atomic project.
I should like the Minister, when he replies, to say if it is envisaged that this new Corporation which will ultimately be set up as a Result of this Order should swell in exactly the same way as did the Commission? Is it intended that, having first abolished the existing organisation within the Ministry of Supply, we should then set up a more or less identical body—build it up from scratch and try to recapture precisely that condition which this Order is an instrument in destroying?
In considering this Order there are three considerations which should be in our minds. The first is, will the ultimate Corporation set up as a result of this Order improve the efficiency of our existing means for developing atomic energy in its military and industrial uses? The second question is, will it provide for greater security? The third, and for many of us the most important question is, will it by its new constitution enable such a degree of public responsibility to be established within the framework of the Corporation that we shall be able to keep a check on and keep control of what the organisation does?
It is said that one of the main reasons why it has been decided that power should be transferred from the Ministry of Supply to the Lord President of the Council and then from him to this new Corporation is that this body should be analogous to an industrial organisation. It will be futile for the right hon. Gentle man when he replies if he tries to com pare the proposed Corporation to any existing nationalised industry corporation. Those are trading bodies

Mr. Speaker: In case there is any misunderstanding, I should say that I shall feel some difficulty in allowing the right hon. Gentleman to reply to all this because we are to have a Bill dealing with the Corporation. Details as to the functions, powers, and possible expansion of the Corporation are more relevant to the Second Reading of that Bill and its subsequent stages than to this debate.

Mr. Edelman: With great respect, is it not inferential that the Corporation will be set up as a result of this Order and is an essential purpose of what we are discussing this evening?

Mr. Speaker: I think it is inferential, and I have laid it down that there may be reference to the Corporation. But details of that organisation and its powers will be the subject of another debate which we cannot anticipate on this Order.

Mr. Edelman: I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, and I shall not embroider that theme. It is none the less necessary to say quite clearly that whatever the Lord President intends to do with those powers when he absorbs the functions of the Ministry of Supply, we must judge of his


capacity to discharge his duties by a three-fold test. That test is whether the Corporation will lead to a contribution towards efficiency in atomic energy development, whether it will enable security to be introduced into atomic energy development supervision and, finally and most important, to what extent the transfer of the functions of the Ministry to the Lord President will enable this country to take part in those international arrangements which have already been foreshadowed. It is perfectly clear that we are entering a time when, instead of it being desirable as the hon. Member for Kidderminster suggested, to disperse control of atomic energy development, it is desirable rather to concentrate that control.
If the Lord President were to have more co-ordinated control of these resources for atomic production which are in existence at present one might say, "Let the Lord President have these powers because then he will be able more easily to deal, as an agent of the Government with those international arrangements which are likely to be made." But I do not believe that to be so.
I believe that this diffusion of power, as a result of the diffusion of responsibilities among the Minister of Works, the Lord President of the Council and the Minister of Supply, will be harmful to Britain when we approach those international problems such as have been foreshadowed by President Eisenhower and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow). Therefore, I wish to declare my firm opposition to the Order in Council. It is quite clearly the beginning of a chain of legislation which will result in authority and responsibility being dispersed. It will weaken the power of Parliament to control both Ministers and policy in relation to atomic energy. From those points of view it is a bad Order, and I trust that my hon. Friends will oppose it in the Lobby.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: There are three issues which concern us all in the conduct of our modern affairs. They are the conduct of foreign policy, the application of modern science to our defence, and the application of atomic science to our industry. In two of those spheres, the Minister concerned is a

member of another place and in the case of the conduct of our foreign affairs we have seen in recent days that whenever there is sickness in this House the conduct of foreign affairs also passes to another place.
This House must really concern itself with the Government's attitude of constantly transferring vital issues away from the scrutiny, the questions and the criticisms of elected Members of the Commons to another place. I ask the elementary question—why are we asked to transfer the functions of the Ministry of Supply to the Lord President of the Council?
I disagree on almost every issue with the present Minister of Supply, as he knows, but I pay him the compliment that he does try, when questioned or criticised in this House, to find adequate reasons for his conduct. We have seen in recent days that that cannot be said of the present holder of the Office of Lord President of the Council, and I therefore believe it to be quite wrong that the Government should at this stage, without giving any adequate reason for the transfer, ask this House to accept the transfer of the conduct of the atomic energy organisation.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson), I happen to have in my constituency one of the biggest atomic research establishments in this country. In Risky 2,000 of my constituents are extremely concerned at the proposals which the Government are now presenting to us. I do not propose to develop the argument, as we have not yet had the Bill, and I should be out of order in going beyond the confines of the Order.
I say to the Government, first, that they are creating confusion and anxiety in the minds of many hundreds of people in my division who have been transferred from their homes in other parts of the country to Risley in order to be employed in the Ministry of Supply establishment there. They are wondering how this transfer will affect their employment. I cannot understand the action of the Government. We know they intend to transfer the atomic energy organisation to a public Corporation, but I do not understand why they should create confusion in the minds of civil servants by transferring the control of atomic energy to the Lord President of the Council.
What advance will it make? At present we put down Questions to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works when we wish to inquire about scientific matters and we have been sorry for the hon. Gentleman when he has had to reply, because obviously he has had to consult other Departments to obtain the right answers. If we are to be placed in that position regarding the control of atomic energy, and if the Minister of Works has to inquire of his noble Friend, it will be no more than a farce. I hope that my view is shared by my hon. Friends.
Constituents of mine who live on a housing estate at Risley wish to know what effect this transfer will have upon them. Will it mean a diminution in the numbers employed at Risley? Will it mean that the conditions which their union has negotiated with the Ministry of Supply will no longer obtain? At one time the Prime Minister gave a promise of a consultation with the union on these matters. He said it would take place at the appropriate time. The trade unions concerned do not accept that there has been any proper consultation with them prior to this decision by the Government.
The trade union wishes to know the position of its members who desire to remain in the service of the Ministry of Supply. Will they be transferred? Will the conditions of employment and the superannuation provisions which they have negotiated still obtain when they are transferred from the control of the right hon. Gentleman, and what will be the position when they become employees of a public Corporation? They would like to know the career prospects. Will there be any guarantee about their grades and classes? What will be the possibilities of promotion? Will they be retarded in any way by this transfer from the Ministry of Supply?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not clear to me whether the hon. Gentleman is now discussing what will happen under the Corporation.

Mr. Lee: I am not discussing that. There are a number of Civil Service unions, some of which are appropriate to specific Departments and the union to which I am referring functions within the Ministry of Supply. I should like the

right hon. Gentleman to tell me whether the conditions negotiated by their union will obtain when members are transferred to the Corporation which is to be under the Lord President of the Council.
These are the main points on which my constituents would like information. It is for them a difficult period. Having removed their homes from other parts of the country to Risley, having become established in the Ministry of Supply and having negotiated certain terms and conditions of employment, they now feel that all that has been done for nothing unless they can have adequate guarantees that when the transfer is effected those conditions will remain. If we are to get the best out of these people during the difficult interim period, it is essential to have an undertaking from the Minister that in nonsense will the conditions which these people have obtained deteriorate as a result of the Government's action in transferring these powers.

10.31 p.m.

The Minister of Works (Sir David Eccles): This is the first of a number of debates which we shall have on this tremendous topic. I feel that my duty tonight is to try to answer the question put by the hon. Member for Newton (Mr. Lee), which is: "Why do the Government propose to transfer the powers and responsibilities in relation to atomic energy to the Lord President of the Council? "
The proposal is a very great tribute to the Ministry of Supply. To suggest that it is a reflection upon my right hon. Friend's administration or the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) is the exact opposite of the truth. It is precisely because British scientists and production engineers have made such astounding progress under the direction of the Department responsible for the manufacture of weapons, that the Government now believe the time has come to put atomic energy in the charge of a Cabinet Minister who has no Departmental requirements for nuclear products. I hope to show that the form of organisation suitable to the project when it was an infant in arms is not now suitable: when the project has grown to manhood,.
The House will remember the history of the United Kingdom atomic energy programme; how during the war it was


placed under the Lord President, Sir John Anderson, as he then was, because he had great personal qualifications, and also because the Lord President was the Minister responsible for scientific matters arising out of Government policy. After the war the project was transferred to the Ministry of Supply.
As I understand it, there were two reasons for that. First, the armament programme was being rapidly run down and, therefore, the Ministry of Supply had spare capacity, and, secondly—perhaps more important—at that time the overriding aim of the atomic energy project was to produce a British bomb. That is the key to the arrangement which was then made.
In 1946, when the Act was passed placing the project under the Minister of Supply, the United States knew how to make an atomic bomb. We did not, although our scientists, as the President of the United States said in his most significant speech on Tuesday, had made great contributions to knowledge of nuclear fission. But the Americans, for reasons which we understand but none the less regret, felt unable to share with us all the secrets of the production process. Therefore, the Labour Government—and Her Majesty's present Ministers think they were right—determined to make the bomb here, and, with this their chief object, it was natural to give the job to the Minister responsible for the manufacture of weapons. From 1946 to 1951, £100 million or more was spent by the Ministry of Supply on this project, and, in the last two years, further great sums have been laid out for the same purpose.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How much?

Sir D. Eccles: The establishments at Harwell, Risley, Windscale, Calder Hall, Capenhurst, Springfields and Aldermaston have arisen in their mysterious complexity, and I can assure the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. F. Anderson) that all these establishments, together with ancillary houses and other buildings, pass now to the Lord President of the Council.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman has told us that £100 million was spent by the Labour Government to develop the atomic bomb. Can he tell us how much the Ministry has spent since?

Sir D. Eccles: No, I cannot give the precise figure, but expenditure has gone on at a very high rate.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I think the right hon. Gentleman is slightly misleading the House in suggesting that the atomic energy department spent large sums of money solely devoted to making the bomb, whereas a very large proportion was devoted to civil purposes.

Sir D. Eccles: If the right hon. Gentleman would wait, I was coming to that point and what happened as a result of this military progress.
Enormous though the expenditure on these establishments has been, the results have been equally enormous. The bomb has been made and has been exploded, and that achievement has greatly increased the defensive power of this country and the help and comfort we can bring to our allies, but, at the same time as British scientists and engineers made the bomb—and this is the point which the right hon. Gentleman made—they added so much to the knowledge of nuclear physics and products that no one who has measured the results of their work can now treat the atomic energy project as something in the nature of a part of our weapons programme.
The Ministry of Supply deserve the congratulations of the House for having brought this about, because, out of a necessary evil—that is, the decision to make the bomb—have come unlimited possibilities for good. Here we are, only eight years after the war, in possession of the secrets of how to make large quantities of fissile material, and how to use that material to explode as a bomb or to generate heat which can be turned into electricity or for other purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) referred to some of the other purposes of this development. On this occasion, I shall not say anything in detail about the medical, industrial and agricultural use of isotopes produced in atomic piles or about fission products which promise to become so important to the plastics industry and in the preservation of food.
The fact is that the most compelling reason for the transfer from the Ministry of Supply is the competition between bombs and electric power stations for


the same fissile materials, and I would say to the hon. Member for Whitehaven that the profit motive in this respect does not come in, because it is only in the United States that power companies are in private hands. As a matter of fact, if it is profitable to develop electricity with fissile material it will be the British Electricity Authority which will, in fact, do it.
The atomic project has grown up, and it is like an infant prodigy who was only interested in soldiers, but who has now widened his outlook and added other and more peaceful ambitions to his military interests. The pace at which these ambitions can be realised depends, of course, upon the international situation, to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) referred, and on the response shown to the speech of the President of the United States. Those are great uncertainties but, subject to that, it can be said that the development of the project is now largely a question of production engineering and, therefore, of the scale of resources which the House is prepared to devote to atomic energy plants, and to the division of those resources between the military and civil uses of fissile material.
Surely, then, it is right to place the responsibility for these great decisions in the hands of a Cabinet Minister who is not himself a claimant for the material. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply continues to want bombs for the Services. I think it was the hon. Member for Coventry, North who asked whether the Services would be satisfied with this arrangement.

Mr. Snow: The right hon. Gentleman keeps on saying that the Minister of Supply is responsible for defence purposes, but he is not exclusively so concerned. He deals with many other activities—agriculture, the aircraft industry and all sorts of things.

Sir D. Eccles: I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the prime purpose of the Ministry of Supply is to supply weapons to the Services.

Mr. Beswick: Only to the order of the Ministry of Defence.

Sir D. Eccles: I will enlarge upon that point. The bomb has, as I suppose hon. Gentlemen are aware, a core of fissile

material which is wrapped up in a case with a lot of gadgets, fuses, etc., of a conventional nature. The Ministry of Supply will continue to be responsible for the manufacture of the conventional parts of the bomb. It will order from the new Corporation the fissile cores just as it orders explosives to put into shells and cartridges. The Corporation will carry the making of that fissile material up to the point where it is to be put into the bomb or warhead or other weapon.
The Ministry of Supply will place orders, through the Lord President, for as many of these cores as it is Government policy shall be made. The Government will have just as much control over the quantity and quality of the bomb cores as they have now, but under the new arrangement we shall be in a very much better position to assess the balance between the military and civil uses of what is the same material.
It is not only the Ministry of Supply which has a claim. There is the Ministry of Fuel and Power which wants electricity which can be generated by nuclear fuel. There is the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture and the Board of Trade. They are all interested in nuclear products. As more progress is made, it may well be that other Ministers will put forward claims for these products, or for the skill required to build atomic plants, for sale overseas. There will be a conflict between the uses of the material at home followed, one may suppose, by a conflict between domestic demand and exports.
I was asked about staff arrangements. The move we are discussing tonight is to disentangle from the Ministry of Supply a going concern, which will afterwards be transferred to the Corporation. The Civil Service will remain the Civil Service after 1st January just as it is now, until the terms have been settled for the transfer to the Corporation. Perhaps the hon. Member for Newton will look at paragraph 20 of the White Paper entitled "Transfer Problems." My noble Friend is adopting this suggestion, and it will also be seen in the Bill that full discussion has taken place and what the arrangements are. To put it simply this atomic energy project is going to expand largely, and when one is in an expanding industry one is on a good thing.

Mr. F. Anderson: What will happen to those who come in after 1st January, 1954?

Sir D. Eccles: They will come in on Civil Service terms until the Corporation starts its existence exactly as they have come in up to now. If we are looking for a Minister who has no departmental claims on fissile material, the Lord President of the Council is the obvious choice—

Mr. Frederick Peart: Not in the Lords.

Sir D. Eccles: —as he was during the war. It is quite an accident that the Lord President happens to be in another place. If I remember rightly, Lord Addison was Lord President; and what one has to look for, in a matter of such tremendous seriousness, is a Minister with the best qualifications for taking these great decisions in the use of this new power.
The Lord President is responsible for the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Medical Research Council. The first brings him into contact with scientists, and there is little doubt that as atomic energy approaches the commercial stage some scientists may fear that research may be sacrificed to production and that more money will go on production and less on research. The Lord President is by far the best Minister scientists can have to understand and satisfy their needs, and I am sure the House feels that research is vital. The Medical Research Council advises the Lord President on the medical uses of radio-active products and on research in that field, and on the protection of workers in the plants and the general public from the dangers to health involved in the manufacture and treatment of uranium. I hope that will reassure the hon. Gentleman the Member for White-haven that standards- will be maintained and looked after by my noble friend.
Great judgment will be required to balance all these rival claims, and I would say that there is no one on this side of the House who thinks that anyone is more fitted to exercise this kind of judgment than the Lord President. He is going to have a particularly difficult job, because fissile material has a peculiar quality as a component of weapons. Other materials

deteriorate with keeping, or grow obsolescent, but this material will keep for thousands of years and can at any time be called from the strategic stockpile to industrial uses. Therefore, if peace were assured we could beat all our plutonium into ploughshares.
In the meantime, we require an independent Minister of great authority, like the Lord President, to watch over this rapidly growing store of life and death and to guide Her Majesty's Government in the negotiations with the other atomic Powers, to which the hon. Member for Coventry, North referred, so that we may come to an international agreement, which we all hope and pray can be secured.
I do not think it is necessary to say very much about my own position in answering Questions for the Lord President, except that it is not true that the Ministry of Works has nothing to do with atomic energy. We have built all these plants to which I have referred. I have 950 professional staff engaged on nothing but drawings and designs for atomic energy plants. I visit the work that is going on as often as I can, arid very interesting it is.
The whole business of atomic energy is a voyage into a new world quite uncharted and unimagined. Here are no signposts. [Interruption.] Hon. Members know that it is because we are on this voyage of discovery that we have got to take the greatest care about the organisation that we set up.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman give to the House the assurance that, quite apart from the buildings, which I agree his Department covers, his Department will be taken into discussion when issues of principle are being determined by the Lord President, and that when he answers Questions in the House he will be answering of his own knowledge of the researches which have gone into this whole issue?

Sir D. Eccles: I am not sure that the White Paper includes the arrangements that are to be made. All I can say, therefore, is that I will convey the hon. Member's remarks to my noble Friend.
In 15 years this adventure has placed in our hands a power for good and evil immeasurably beyond all past experience and immeasurably beyond our present


comprehension. Therefore, there rests a terrible responsibility upon those who have to decide how this power shall be used. Personally, I feel that the days of the Old Testament prophets are coming back again and that any layman contemplating the first fruits of atomic physics and atomic chemistry finds it very hard not to believe in Hell, and in Heaven, too.
Parliament has the duty to watch over the organisation of atomic energy in the United Kingdom. We ask the House to reject the Motion, which would prevent us from taking the first step to establish

a sound system of control over the violent force which at this moment we are creating in this country and which, we hope, will be exercised for the defence of peace and for the happiness of men. I cannot believe that the Labour Party, having looked at this matter carefully, want to keep atomic energy a prisoner of the armaments programme, and therefore I hope that they will not press this Motion to a Division.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 158.

Division No. 15.]
AYES
[10.45 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hobson, C. R.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Bence, C. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Rankin, John


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Reeves, J.


Beswick, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, B.
Rhodes, H.


Blackburn, F.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Ross, William


Blenkinsop, A.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Royle, C.


Blyton, W. R.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley


Bowles, F. G.
Jones David (Hartlepool)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Smith, Ellies (Stoke, S.)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Keenan, W.
Snow, J. W.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Coldrick, W.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Collick, P. H.
Lindgren, G. S.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGovern, J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Thornton, E.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wallace, H. W.


Edelman, M.
Manuel, A. C.
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Weitzman, D.


Fienburgh, W.
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Follick, M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Foot, M. M.
Morley, R.
Wigg, George


Gibson, C. W.
Mort, D. L.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Hannan, W.
Oldfield, W. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hardy, E. A.
Oliver, G. H.
Yates, V. F.


Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, E.)
Padley, W. E.



Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES: 


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, J.
Mr. Bowden and


Herbison, Miss M.
Peart, T. F.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Bishop, F. P.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bossom, Sir A. C.
Crockshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.


Amory, Rt. Hon. Heathcote (Tiverton)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Crouch, R. F.


Arbuthnot, John
Browne, Jack (Govan)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bullard, D. G.
Darling, Sir William (Edingurgh S.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Davidson, Viscount


Banks, Col. C.
Carr, Robert
Deedes, W. F.


Barber, Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Doughty, C. J. A.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Channon, H.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Drayson, G. B.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Drewe, Sir C.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Cole, Norman
Duthie, W. S.


Bennett. Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Colegate, W. A.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir D. M.


Birch, Nigel
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.




Fell, A.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Roper, Sir Harold


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, A. J.
Russell, R. S.


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Mackie, J. A. (Galloway)
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fort, R.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Galbraith, Rt. Hon. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Stevens, G. P.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Storey, S.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Summers, G. S.


Grimond, J.
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Molson, A. H. E.
Teeling, W.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hay, John
Neave, Airey
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Nicholls, Harmar
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Heath, Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E)
Touche, Sir Gordon


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Turner, H. F. L.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oaksholt, H. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hopkinson, Rt. Hon. Henry
O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vosper, D. F.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wade, D. W.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-super-Mare)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Page, R. G.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Kerr, H. W.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Raikes, Sir Victor
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Redmayne, M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.



Longden, Gilbert
Renton, D. L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES: 


Low, A. R. W.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Mr. Studholme and Mr. Wills.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)



Question put, and agreed to.

RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES, LEICESTERSHIRE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir Cedric Drewe.]

10.53 p.m.

Mr. John Baldock: I wish to raise a question this evening which is of particular concern to local interests in my constituency, but which I think is also of some general importance in so far as it relates to the amenities of rural communities in general.
On Saturday I went to see a train leave Market Harborough Station. It was larger than the customary trains which have been leaving on that line for a considerable time, and it was headed by a very ancient Midland engine. On the platform were a very large number of people to see this train, the last ordinary passenger train on this line to leave Market Harborough for Melton Mowbray. I understand that there was a considerable crowd at Melton Mowbray also to see it on its last return journey. Many who witnessed the departure at either end were wearing mourning clothes with black ribands and armlets. They were "in at the death" of a service which had ren-

dered considerable assistance to the rural communities between Market Harborough and Melton Mowbray on a piece of line which had served 11 rural stations. On each side of the line is the finest feeding land in Britain.
All those 11 stations between Market Harborough and Melton Mowbray were originally intended to be closed to passenger traffic thereby, in many cases, entirely cancelling all public passenger traffic "between them on three or four days a week. After representations by the East Midlands Area Transport Users' Consultative Committee, a modification of this suspension has fortunately been introduced, so that, from this station at any rate, workmen's trains will operate, one in the morning and one at night, allowing those who earn their livelihoods in Market Harborough or Leicester still to continue in their occupations, which would otherwise have been quite impossible for them.
But it is my representation tonight that this is insufficient, that it is not a satisfactory alternative to a proper passenger service which these villages have enjoyed for the past fifty years, to find themselves with only one train a day in each direction. It is hardly a satisfactory position


for a housewife who wishes to go and do her shopping in Market Harborough, the natural centre for the area about which I am speaking, if she has got to leave at 7.40 in the morning, remain in the town throughout the day, and return at 6.30 in the evening. She would probably find she had to neglect many of her other duties and that she would certainly, in the normal way, wish to return very much earlier than this, or leave much later.
The particular communities about which I am concerned, and which are in my own constituency, are served by Hallaton Station—the villages of Blaston, Horninghold, Slawston and Stockerston. These villages are now, apart from this early morning and late night workmen's train, entirely without transport for the first time in 50 years on three days in the week, Monday, Thursday, and Friday. No alternative bus services have been provided as, I think, everyone knows, was to be done when this normal passenger service was cancelled, and these people find themselves as I have said, entirely without public transport on three days in the week.
The bus service which was promised originally as an alternative would, in any case, not have been satisfactory for those who wish to go to Market Harborough or Leicester to earn their living, because, whereas the train took 10 minutes to get from Hallaton to Market Harborough, the buses take 45 minutes to one hour, which would add considerably to the day for the man travelling into Market Harborough to earn his livelihood.
Fortunately, this has been overcome by continuing, for the present at any rate, this workmen's train, but I believe there is a danger that even that facility may be withdrawn, and I want the Parliamentary Secretary to consider this matter most earnestly, and to see the predicament in which those who work in Leicester and Market Harborough, who travel from these villages every day, would find themselves in if they were not even provided with this workmen's train. But in the meantime they are running, and the chief inconvenience to the people in this community is that they are without public transport on these three days in the week.
It seems to me that, at a time when it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to improve the amenities in the

countryside, and when the people in the countryside are rightly expecting improvement in their amenities, it is a most retrograde step that the public transport of these isolated communities should be deteriorating instead of improving in this year of 1953. The East Midlands area is particularly bad so far as agricultural workers are concerned. There is the tremendous magnet of the large urban populations in Rugby, Leicester, Northampton, and other towns in the East Midlands, and the whole time there is a steady drift away from the land.
This surely is a situation which is going to be aggravated by any reduction in rural amenities. Here is a case where an important rural centre covering a very large area of very productive farmland, a very fertile district, is left far worse off in the matter of public transport than it has ever been since the growth of the railway age. Surely this is a most retrograde step. I have found that the East Midlands Transport Users' Consultative Committee, the chairman of which is Professor Peers, admits to this dilemma. He says that there is need for economies in our whole transport system. But, surely that runs counter to the equal necessity for preventing the drift from the land and encouraging agricultural productivity.
Could I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to consider very seriously that aspect of this matter? Nobody suggests that the railways be given additional burdens and expenses which they cannot afford, and which could be avoided, but, on the other hand, it was generally understood that in a great nationalised service, such as the Post Office, and later the railways and the electricity supply, one side balanced the other. In other words, I do not think that any particular electricity line, or any particular pillar box or telephone kiosk, was expected necessarily to be economic in itself. Rather, in a broad national sense, it was considered that one part of the service which was successful—in some cases, very successful—would balance with the other to provide a service for those who needed to enjoy it. But that does not seem to be taken into account in this particular line which is not economic, and it must be closed to passenger traffic.
Could not these two dilemmas be reconciled? Could not a diesel car be intro-


duced? I think that that has often been suggested in this House, but by that means could not this rural area enjoy transport at least as good as it has enjoyed for fifty or a hundred years? That would provide transport at least as good as these people have enjoyed. Could there not be a light diesel rail-car, which could be operated by one man acting in the joint capacity of driver and ticket collector, without there being any staff on the stations and thereby reducing considerably the running costs and expenses of this line? It would allow of the people in this remote community having an amenity which they have enjoyed in the past and which they should be able to anticipate enjoying in greater measure in the future.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I intervene only for a moment or two to say that I hope the British Transport Commission will use due caution in this matter of the closing and diminution of branch lines. It is a popular policy in the popular Press that branch lines be closed in the hope of adding to the revenues of the railways by getting rid of services deemed to be uneconomic. But I do appeal for great caution, because what is gained in the one direction is apt to be lost in another. We have seen the prospect of trouble in the Isle of Wight in connection with the closing of lines since a sudden flood of traffic on the roads of the island would be quite inappropriate; indeed, might very well lead to an impossible situation. This might probably mean that more would have to be spent on the roads to make them fit for an alternative service to the railway.
The greatest caution ought to be exercised in approaching this question of closing branch lines for that reason. There was a report made, I believe by the International Union of Railways, in February, 1951, on the position of European Railways and their difficulties, the causes of those difficulties and possible remedies. The copy I have is only a translation from, I believe, the French; but it does give an insight into the question of comparative costs. It states that the cost price by rail of large quantities of traffic is approximately four or five times less than the cost price by road. It depends, of course, on what the quantities are; but

if large sums have to be spent on improving roads to carry some means of transport alternative to the railway, little is saved by cutting a rail service. If, as apparently is happening in the case which has been mentioned, some rail service is being maintained, it seems questionable that there is any saving.
I was interested in the suggestion made tonight, and which I have made on other occasions, that there should be exploration of the possibility of adapting a system of light railways, particularly the Continental system of using the standard tramway. It might be possible to get rid of railway fences, platforms and ticket offices, and to run a light car as a tram, with a driver and conductor. This would probably require amendment of the law, but it is a possibility which might well be explored.

11.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson): We all, I think, have a sentimental sympathy with the case put by the hon. Member for Market Harborough (Mr. Baldock), and we felt this particularly as he described the gathering of the inhabitants in mourning clothes when the last train ran along the line which had served them, and with which they had been familiar for 50 years. At the same time, I am bound to say that, because of the development of road transport, it is essential for the state of economy and solvency of the Transport Commission, that uneconomic lines shall be closed.
The attitude of the Government was expressed by my predecessor as recently as the 21st October, when he said,
The policy which the Transport Commission are pursuing—that of pruning uneconomic services wherever adequate alternative facilities exist—is one which has received the support of both the previous Government and of ourselves, and is one which we continue to support."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 21st October, 1953; Vol. 518. c. 1994.]
Responsibility in this matter rests with the British Transport Commission, and the only opportunity for intervention which my right hon. Friend has is if an intended closure of a line by the Transport Commission is disapproved by the Central, or Scottish, or Welsh Transport Users' Consultative Committee. The proposal for the closing of this branch line was put before the Transport Users'


Consultative Committee for the East Midlands Area on 25th February.
In order that the matter should be carefully considered, that Committee set up a sub-committee which went into the matter very carefully. They concluded that nothing had been said by any of the objectors which would justify their recommending the withdrawal of the proposals. But they were of opinion that hardship would be caused in certain areas, particularly in Hallaton, and they were impressed by the fact that approximately 20 daily travellers from Hallaton and East Norton to Market Harborough would be deprived of transport facilities to enable them to continue in the work they were doing.
They, therefore, recommended that either a workmen's train service should be continued or that an alternative omnibus service should be substituted. The proposals of the subcommittee came before the main Committee which supported their recommendations and added a recommendation that there should be a similar service from John o'Gaunt to Leicester. When the matter was referred to the Central Consultative Committee it endorsed the proposals of the East Midland Committee and they were accepted by the British Transport Commission which has provided the workmen's services asked for.
Therefore, my right hon. Friend has no right of intervention in this matter, because the action of the Commission in reducing so drastically the services upon this branch line had been supported by the central consultative committee. My hon. Friend admitted that that was so, but he put the case of the other inhabitants of Hallaton who might not wish to use this workmen's train which leaves Hallaton early in the morning and returns in the evening. But in this respect the inhabitants of Hallaton are no worse off than those of many other villages. It is true that they have been accustomed for 50 years to having a railway service available, but it was clearly established before the sub-committee that the people of Hallaton had made very little use of the service while it existed.
The Commission is anxious if possible to arrange for a bus service to be provided on Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays and Sundays when the people of Hallaton have at present no transport to carry

them into the neighbouring towns. So far it has not been possible to find any bus company willing to provide such a service except at the cost of a subsidy of £5,000 a year. Clearly, the Commission would not be justified in paying anything like that sum to provide such a service.
We have great sympathy with those who are, I think necessarily deprived of a service to which they have been accustomed, but in the general interests of the transport system of the country it is essential that uneconomic services should not be continued. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) supported my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough in his reference to the possibility of a diesel service which would go some way to providing the kind of service which the people of Hallaton enjoyed before, but at much less expense. That matter has been investigated but it has been found that there is really no possibility of a continued rail service, even of a much more economical kind, being remunerative if it is provided on this line.
My hon. Friend questioned whether in, fact any substantial economy would be made by the closing of this line for passenger service. The estimated saving when the original proposal was put forward was just about £30,000 a year. As a result of maintaining this special workmen's service for the benefit of those who travel between Hallaton and Market Harborough and between John O'Gaunt and Leicester, there will be a continued charge of £3,500 a year so that the actual saving will be £26,500 a year.
Even although we do desire to provide the best possible transport system in the agricultural parts of the country, we could not possibly criticise the British Transport Commission when it takes the view that it is not justifiable to meet a loss of £30,000 a year for the benefit of the 22 passengers who, on an average, use the trains which have been in use upon that line. Although we are still hopeful that it may be possible to arrange for a bus service which will go some way to making up for the withdrawal of the rail service, my Tight hon. Friend feels he has no possible moral right, and certainly no legal right, to criticise the decision of the British Transport Commission which has been approved by the consultative committee.

Mr. Baldock: Before the Parliamentary Secretary sits down, can I ask him, arising out of what he has said, whether he will watch the position about the continuance of the workmen's train in the morning and evening, if there is any suggestion that it should be withdrawn, and secondly, whether he would undertake that some examination should be made into my hon. Friend's suggestion of a light diesel car with completely different safety regulations than those imposed at present on the railways which might be operated by one man in the joint capacity of driver, ticket collector and conductor on lines

which are being retained in any case for goods traffic, and which would not require any station staff or any heavy expenditure in other directions.

Mr. Molson: I will certainly bear both points in mind, although it is quite clear I am not giving any undertaking as to what has to be done.

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes past Eleven o'clock